--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.) > > Do you ever wonder why people don't like you?
Why people like you don't like me, you mean? Not for a second. > > The Ig Nobel Awards are not what either Vaj or Hugheshugo > > claim they are. > > My "claim" was a quote from their website; > > "The Ig Nobel Ceremony, now in its fourth year, honors people whose > achievements cannot or should not be reproduced. Beginning with this > year's ceremony on October 6, the Ig Nobels will be produced jointly > by The MIT Museum and The Annals of Improbable Research." > > Apology to the usual address please. Nope, if there's an apology to be made, it would be by you, given your first mention of the Ig Nobel: "He comes over > as a nice guy but he has clearly abandoned science, he > wouldn't even hand over his data on the washington study > on the ME. No wonder he got the Ignoble prize." As I pointed out (and you ignored), you were implying-- incorrectly--that the Ig Nobels are awarded for "abandoning science" or for not handing over data. > > They would both benefit from reading this > > essay by Abrams, which is well thought out and much more > > faithful to the spirit of scientific research than either > > of them are. > > Oh sure Judy I'm not faithful to the spirit of science because I > don't agree with you about the ME. You sure? Let me correct you on that, I love > science, I always have, I get New Scientist magazine every week, my > bookshelves groan under the weight of books on quantum physics, > astronomy, paleontology. I wish there was more time to learn it > all. When my family got a video recorder my first choice to tape > was "Horizon" I love reading about new ideas, I have friends who > are physicists who keep me up to date, I'm on the edge of my seat > about the big switch-on at CERN this summer. Biased? no I don't > think so. My, we're a wee bit defensive, aren't we? I'm sure you love science; I never suggested otherwise. Nor did I say you were biased. You made that up. Quoting Marc Abrams, inventor of the Ig Nobels, again: "The classic sequence of events for any breakthrough is: "(1) Most people don't recognize its existence; then "(2) When they do recognize it, their immediate reaction is to laugh or scoff at it; then "(3) Some of those people become curious about this thing that they are laughing at, and then think about it, and so come to appreciate its true worth." (Notice that he doesn't specify whether "true worth" means "very valuable" or "worthless.") What I meant by saying you aren't as faithful as the Ig Nobels to the spirit of scientific research is that you don't give the "think about it" part its full due, or at least you haven't with regard to Hagelin's research, as you go on to demonstrate: > Regarding J Hagelins Ig nobel victory, I found this on the > Igs follow-up page; > > 1994-07-03 Ig Nobel Peace Prize: Follow-up Investigation > > Robert L. Park of the American Physical Society (APS) has done a > follow-up investigation of the work which earned John Hagelin this > year's Ig Nobel Peace Prize. Park's report appeared in his weekly > APS newsletter, "WHAT'S NEW." It reads in part: > > "The [1994 Ig Nobel] Peace Prize went to physicist John Hagelin > for his experiment to reduce crime in Washington, DC by the > coherent meditation of 4,000 TM [Transcendental Meditation] > experts. By coincidence, Hagelin was holding a press conference > [on the day of the Ig Nobel Ceremony] to announce his final > results. It was a data analysis clinic; violent crime, he proudly > declared, decreased 18%! Relative to what? To the predictions of > "time-series analysis" involving variables such as temperature and > the economy. So although the weekly murder count hit the highest > level ever recorded, it was less than predicted." The weekly murder count was *not* "less than predicted," no. In fact, no "follow-up investigation" was needed, as the study discussed the murder-rate anomaly in some detail. You might want to actually *read* the study sometime so you'll have some idea of what you're talking about and be able to see through Park's deliberately misleading report. > Here is a more detailed version. > > http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_24/ai_67691836 Sad to say, this is even more misleading (and wildly inaccurate in places--e.g., the time-series analysis did *not* include "fluctuations in Earth's magnetic field." If Park actually read the study, then he's telling a deliberate falsehood). > After reading all I can find on the subject I have to conclude that > the laws of physics are safe, if you ever find anything to the > contrary, other than your own prejudice of course, let us know. It's amusing that you think I'm defending the ME. Instead of just assuming, why don't you *ask* me what I think of it? Wouldn't that be the more, er, scientific approach?
