Re: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away

2010-07-15 Thread Michael Smith 
...I was up in Tobermory :-) with no internet so happily couldn't
respond to Mike P's deeply insightful reply (lol).

The funniest was the insights and understandings part, especially
considering Mike P here:

> Ah, irony!  I love it when it comes so think one can cut it with a knife.
> Quoting from the article:
> Research results not consistent with your world view? Then you're
> likely to believe science can't supply all the answers

I suppose that Mike believes that the statement is obviously
true--after all, it was in a popular article and he considers the
article's conclusions so strong that they are worth quoting! ...Now
there's an insightful soccer-science at its best.

All in all, pretty funny.

--Mike

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3604
or send a blank email to 
leave-3604-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away

2010-07-13 Thread Annette Taylor 
Whoa!!! I looked on amazon and only found it for 65.00; where did you look?

Annette

Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.
Professor, Psychological Sciences
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
tay...@sandiego.edu<mailto:tay...@sandiego.edu>

From: Marc Carter [marc.car...@bakeru.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:53 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to 
reason it away


I just did the same thing, and ordered it.  Right now Amazon's got it for 
$13.60...

m

--
Marc Carter, PhD
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Psychology
College of Arts & Sciences
Baker University
--

> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Bernhardt [mailto:pcbernha...@frostburg.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:27 PM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: Re: [tips] When the scientific evidence is
> unwelcome, people try to reason it away
>
> Wow, that is seriously well-written. I opened it on Google
> Books and it sucked me in immediately and for 45 minutes
> before coming up air to get back to work.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Bernhardt
> Dept of Psychology
> Frostburg State University
> pcbernhardt _at_ frostburg _dot_ edu
>
>
>
> On Jul 13, 2010, at 12:07 PM, peter...@svsu.edu wrote:
>
> > Massimo Pigliucci's book Nonsense on Stilts, part of my
> summer reading, does a nice job of exploring these ideas and
> misconceptions.   Gary
> >
> >
> > GPeterson
> > Gary's iPad
> >
> > On Jul 13, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Marc Carter
>  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Mike Palij [mailto:m...@nyu.edu]
> >>
> >>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:07:19 -0700, Michael Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> [snippage snipped]
> >>
> >>>> especially the social sciences which just aren't on par with the
> >>>> physical sciences.
> >>>
> >>> This is a curious statement because it assumes that there is a
> >>> common metric that one can use to compare the achievements in
> >>> different domains of the sciences.  I wonder which
> >>> metric(s) Prof. Smith is using as the basis for this?  Can he
> >>> enlighten us?
> >>
> >> I share your curiosity.
> >>
> >> I often get into this discussion with people in the "hard"
> sciences.  When I ask them to tell me what differentiates a
> "hard" from "soft" science, they can't do it.
> >>
> >> When I ask them why biology is considered a "hard"
> science, especially given parts of biology that are in no way
> I can determine different from psychological science, they
> can't tell me.
> >>
> >> So I would really like to know.
> >>
> >> Science is method, not content, and doesn't have anything
> to do with the difference in variability or reliability of
> the result.  It's a method for finding things out (or more
> accurately, it's a method for telling you when you're wrong).
>  Physics uses it, biology uses it, psychology uses, and so
> on.  I don't get the distinction between hard and soft
> science -- it literally makes no sense to me.  We differ in
> technique, in subject of investigation, in accuracy in
> prediction (for many things -- things which I as a
> behaviorist would say are due to the scientists' ignorance
> and not anything intrinsic to the subject).
> >>
> >> But none of those have to do with the method.
> >>
> >> m
> >>
> >> The information contained in this e-mail and any
> attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by Baker University
> ("BU") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of
> only the individual or entity named above. The information
> may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures
> acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is
> not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention,
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
> error please immediately notify Baker University by email
> reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail
> message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> You are currently subscribed to tips as: peter...@svsu.edu.
> >> To unsubscribe click here:
> >>
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8

RE: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away

2010-07-13 Thread Marc Carter 

I just did the same thing, and ordered it.  Right now Amazon's got it for 
$13.60...

m

--
Marc Carter, PhD
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Psychology
College of Arts & Sciences
Baker University
--

> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Bernhardt [mailto:pcbernha...@frostburg.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:27 PM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: Re: [tips] When the scientific evidence is
> unwelcome, people try to reason it away
>
> Wow, that is seriously well-written. I opened it on Google
> Books and it sucked me in immediately and for 45 minutes
> before coming up air to get back to work.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Bernhardt
> Dept of Psychology
> Frostburg State University
> pcbernhardt _at_ frostburg _dot_ edu
>
>
>
> On Jul 13, 2010, at 12:07 PM, peter...@svsu.edu wrote:
>
> > Massimo Pigliucci's book Nonsense on Stilts, part of my
> summer reading, does a nice job of exploring these ideas and
> misconceptions.   Gary
> >
> >
> > GPeterson
> > Gary's iPad
> >
> > On Jul 13, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Marc Carter
>  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Mike Palij [mailto:m...@nyu.edu]
> >>
> >>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:07:19 -0700, Michael Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> [snippage snipped]
> >>
> >>>> especially the social sciences which just aren't on par with the
> >>>> physical sciences.
> >>>
> >>> This is a curious statement because it assumes that there is a
> >>> common metric that one can use to compare the achievements in
> >>> different domains of the sciences.  I wonder which
> >>> metric(s) Prof. Smith is using as the basis for this?  Can he
> >>> enlighten us?
> >>
> >> I share your curiosity.
> >>
> >> I often get into this discussion with people in the "hard"
> sciences.  When I ask them to tell me what differentiates a
> "hard" from "soft" science, they can't do it.
> >>
> >> When I ask them why biology is considered a "hard"
> science, especially given parts of biology that are in no way
> I can determine different from psychological science, they
> can't tell me.
> >>
> >> So I would really like to know.
> >>
> >> Science is method, not content, and doesn't have anything
> to do with the difference in variability or reliability of
> the result.  It's a method for finding things out (or more
> accurately, it's a method for telling you when you're wrong).
>  Physics uses it, biology uses it, psychology uses, and so
> on.  I don't get the distinction between hard and soft
> science -- it literally makes no sense to me.  We differ in
> technique, in subject of investigation, in accuracy in
> prediction (for many things -- things which I as a
> behaviorist would say are due to the scientists' ignorance
> and not anything intrinsic to the subject).
> >>
> >> But none of those have to do with the method.
> >>
> >> m
> >>
> >> The information contained in this e-mail and any
> attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by Baker University
> ("BU") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of
> only the individual or entity named above. The information
> may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures
> acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is
> not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention,
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
> error please immediately notify Baker University by email
> reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail
> message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> You are currently subscribed to tips as: peter...@svsu.edu.
> >> To unsubscribe click here:
> >>
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd
> >> 94b&n=T&l=tips&o=3561 or send a blank email to
> >>
> leave-3561-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.e
> >> du
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to tips as: pcbernha...@frostburg.edu.
> > To unsubscribe click here:
> >
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f2630
> > 03&n=T&l=tips&o=3562 or send a blank email to
> >
> leave-3562-13441.4e79e96eb

Re: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away

2010-07-13 Thread Paul Bernhardt 
Wow, that is seriously well-written. I opened it on Google Books and it sucked 
me in immediately and for 45 minutes before coming up air to get back to work. 

Paul

Paul Bernhardt
Dept of Psychology
Frostburg State University
pcbernhardt _at_ frostburg _dot_ edu



On Jul 13, 2010, at 12:07 PM, peter...@svsu.edu wrote:

> Massimo Pigliucci's book Nonsense on Stilts, part of my summer reading, does 
> a nice job of exploring these ideas and misconceptions.   Gary
> 
> 
> GPeterson
> Gary's iPad
> 
> On Jul 13, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Marc Carter  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Mike Palij [mailto:m...@nyu.edu]
>> 
 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:07:19 -0700, Michael Smith wrote:
>> 
>> [snippage snipped]
>> 
 especially the social sciences which just aren't on par with the
 physical sciences.
>>> 
>>> This is a curious statement because it assumes that there is
>>> a common metric that one can use to compare the achievements
>>> in different domains of the sciences.  I wonder which
>>> metric(s) Prof. Smith is using as the basis for this?  Can he
>>> enlighten us?
>> 
>> I share your curiosity.
>> 
>> I often get into this discussion with people in the "hard" sciences.  When I 
>> ask them to tell me what differentiates a "hard" from "soft" science, they 
>> can't do it.
>> 
>> When I ask them why biology is considered a "hard" science, especially given 
>> parts of biology that are in no way I can determine different from 
>> psychological science, they can't tell me.
>> 
>> So I would really like to know.
>> 
>> Science is method, not content, and doesn't have anything to do with the 
>> difference in variability or reliability of the result.  It's a method for 
>> finding things out (or more accurately, it's a method for telling you when 
>> you're wrong).  Physics uses it, biology uses it, psychology uses, and so 
>> on.  I don't get the distinction between hard and soft science -- it 
>> literally makes no sense to me.  We differ in technique, in subject of 
>> investigation, in accuracy in prediction (for many things -- things which I 
>> as a behaviorist would say are due to the scientists' ignorance and not 
>> anything intrinsic to the subject).
>> 
>> But none of those have to do with the method.
>> 
>> m
>> 
>> The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto 
>> ("e-mail") is sent by Baker University ("BU") and is intended to be 
>> confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. 
>> The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and 
>> disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not 
>> the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, 
>> distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have 
>> received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by 
>> email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and 
>> any attachments thereto. Thank you.
>> 
>> ---
>> You are currently subscribed to tips as: peter...@svsu.edu.
>> To unsubscribe click here: 
>> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94b&n=T&l=tips&o=3561
>> or send a blank email to 
>> leave-3561-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
>> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: pcbernha...@frostburg.edu.
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263003&n=T&l=tips&o=3562
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-3562-13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263...@fsulist.frostburg.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3566
or send a blank email to 
leave-3566-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian

2010-07-13 Thread Paul Brandon 
It means that social scientists have more time for golf.

Paul Brandon
Emeritus Professor of Psychology
Minnesota State University, Mankato
paul.bran...@mnsu.edu

On Jul 13, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Joann Jelly wrote:

> Michael, what does "just aren't on par with the physical sciences" mean?  I 
> hope this isn't a reference to the "hard"sciences (physical sciences) and the 
> "soft" sciences (social sciences);  sigh.


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3565
or send a blank email to 
leave-3565-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian

2010-07-13 Thread Joann Jelly 
Michael, what does "just aren't on par with the physical sciences" mean?  I 
hope this isn't a reference to the "hard"sciences (physical sciences) and the 
"soft" sciences (social sciences);  sigh.
 
Joann Jelly



From: Michael Smith [mailto:tipsl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tue 7/13/2010 1:07 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to 
reason it away | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian



I wonder if "scientists" are people too.

I hope the implication of the author of the article isn't that science
can address all issues, which it clearly can't...especially the social
sciences which just aren't on par with the physical sciences.

--Mike

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Christopher D. Green  wrote:
>
>
> Here is a description of an interesting study that might be of use in a
> critical thinking course (or cognition, or social psych, or methods).
> Apparently when you confront people with evidence that runs contrary to
> their pre-existing beliefs, they not only argue that science cannot address
> the question, they also often generalize that opinion of science to a wide
> range of other topics as well.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/03/confirmation-bias-scientific-evidence
>
> Chrsi
> --
>
> Christopher D. Green
> Department of Psychology
> York University
> Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
> Canada
>
>
>
> 416-736-2100 ex. 66164
> chri...@yorku.ca
> http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
>
> ==
>
> ---
>
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: tipsl...@gmail.com.
>
> To unsubscribe click here:
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13541.42a7e8017ab9578358f118300f4720fb&n=T&l=tips&o=3543
>
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>
> or send a blank email to
> leave-3543-13541.42a7e8017ab9578358f118300f472...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: jje...@barstow.edu.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13010.76185584223b2f7b9f3a91a2f9913135&n=T&l=tips&o=3548
or send a blank email to 
leave-3548-13010.76185584223b2f7b9f3a91a2f9913...@fsulist.frostburg.edu



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3563
or send a blank email to 
leave-3563-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away

2010-07-13 Thread peterson 
Massimo Pigliucci's book Nonsense on Stilts, part of my summer reading, does a 
nice job of exploring these ideas and misconceptions.   Gary

 
GPeterson
Gary's iPad

On Jul 13, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Marc Carter  wrote:

> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mike Palij [mailto:m...@nyu.edu]
> 
>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:07:19 -0700, Michael Smith wrote:
> 
> [snippage snipped]
> 
>>> especially the social sciences which just aren't on par with the
>>> physical sciences.
>> 
>> This is a curious statement because it assumes that there is
>> a common metric that one can use to compare the achievements
>> in different domains of the sciences.  I wonder which
>> metric(s) Prof. Smith is using as the basis for this?  Can he
>> enlighten us?
> 
> I share your curiosity.
> 
> I often get into this discussion with people in the "hard" sciences.  When I 
> ask them to tell me what differentiates a "hard" from "soft" science, they 
> can't do it.
> 
> When I ask them why biology is considered a "hard" science, especially given 
> parts of biology that are in no way I can determine different from 
> psychological science, they can't tell me.
> 
> So I would really like to know.
> 
> Science is method, not content, and doesn't have anything to do with the 
> difference in variability or reliability of the result.  It's a method for 
> finding things out (or more accurately, it's a method for telling you when 
> you're wrong).  Physics uses it, biology uses it, psychology uses, and so on. 
>  I don't get the distinction between hard and soft science -- it literally 
> makes no sense to me.  We differ in technique, in subject of investigation, 
> in accuracy in prediction (for many things -- things which I as a behaviorist 
> would say are due to the scientists' ignorance and not anything intrinsic to 
> the subject).
> 
> But none of those have to do with the method.
> 
> m
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto 
> ("e-mail") is sent by Baker University ("BU") and is intended to be 
> confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. 
> The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures 
> acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
> recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or 
> copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
> e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply and 
> immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments 
> thereto. Thank you.
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: peter...@svsu.edu.
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94b&n=T&l=tips&o=3561
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-3561-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
> 


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3562
or send a blank email to 
leave-3562-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away

2010-07-13 Thread Marc Carter 


> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Palij [mailto:m...@nyu.edu]

> > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:07:19 -0700, Michael Smith wrote:

[snippage snipped]

> >especially the social sciences which just aren't on par with the
> >physical sciences.
>
> This is a curious statement because it assumes that there is
> a common metric that one can use to compare the achievements
> in different domains of the sciences.  I wonder which
> metric(s) Prof. Smith is using as the basis for this?  Can he
> enlighten us?

I share your curiosity.

I often get into this discussion with people in the "hard" sciences.  When I 
ask them to tell me what differentiates a "hard" from "soft" science, they 
can't do it.

When I ask them why biology is considered a "hard" science, especially given 
parts of biology that are in no way I can determine different from 
psychological science, they can't tell me.

So I would really like to know.

Science is method, not content, and doesn't have anything to do with the 
difference in variability or reliability of the result.  It's a method for 
finding things out (or more accurately, it's a method for telling you when 
you're wrong).  Physics uses it, biology uses it, psychology uses, and so on.  
I don't get the distinction between hard and soft science -- it literally makes 
no sense to me.  We differ in technique, in subject of investigation, in 
accuracy in prediction (for many things -- things which I as a behaviorist 
would say are due to the scientists' ignorance and not anything intrinsic to 
the subject).

But none of those have to do with the method.

m

The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") 
is sent by Baker University ("BU") and is intended to be confidential and for 
the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be 
protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal 
rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are 
notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail 
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please 
immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and 
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3561
or send a blank email to 
leave-3561-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian

2010-07-13 Thread Rick Stevens 
I wouldn't interpret the author's icon as an example of bad science, he's
just on the lookout for bad science.  Anyway, if you use the iGoogle page
you can get a newsfeed gadget of the Ben Goldacre column.
RS


On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Rick Froman  wrote:

> But in what sense was Frankenstein's creation ("monster" seems a non-PC
> insult to a creature that had to deal as best he could with some faulty
> biology and terrible self-esteem problems, not to mention an absence of love
> from his significant others) a result of bad science? If actually possible,
> such a thing (the re-animation of dead tissue) would be top-notch
> breakthrough science even today. His problem was not one of methodology but
> of morality. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. What
> you can do is the realm of science; what you should do, not so much.
>
> Rick
>
> Dr. Rick Froman, Chair
> Division of Humanities and Social Sciences
> Professor of Psychology
> Box 3055
> John Brown University
> 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR  72761
> rfro...@jbu.edu
> (479)524-7295
> http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Brandon [mailto:paul.bran...@mnsu.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:40 AM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: Re: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try
> to reason it away | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian
>
> And of course the picture is not of Victor Frankenstein, but of the monster
> that he created (an icon for Bad Science?).
>
> Paul Brandon
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology
> Minnesota State University, Mankato
> paul.bran...@mnsu.edu
>
> On Jul 13, 2010, at 7:59 AM,   
> wrote:
>
> >  Yes, and we see similar responses around us all the time...even here on
> TIPS.  But what is up with the picture of Frankenstein?! Perhaps this is Ben
> G's idea of science?  Perhaps
> > Scott L. might find that of interest re: characterizations of
> science...and psych?  Findings from Psych,  relevant to our everyday
> experiences, are even more likely to be challenging and thus lead to
> rejection of Psych as science?
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: rfro...@jbu.edu.
> To unsubscribe click here:
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8a&n=T&l=tips&o=3556
> or send a blank email to
> leave-3556-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: stevens.r...@gmail.com.
> To unsubscribe click here:
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13526.d532f8e870faf8a0d8f6433b7952f38d&n=T&l=tips&o=3559
> or send a blank email to
> leave-3559-13526.d532f8e870faf8a0d8f6433b7952f...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
>



-- 
Rick Stevens
Psychology Department
University of Louisiana at Monroe
stevens.r...@gmail.com
SL - Evert Snook

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3560
or send a blank email to 
leave-3560-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian

2010-07-13 Thread Rick Froman 
But in what sense was Frankenstein's creation ("monster" seems a non-PC insult 
to a creature that had to deal as best he could with some faulty biology and 
terrible self-esteem problems, not to mention an absence of love from his 
significant others) a result of bad science? If actually possible, such a thing 
(the re-animation of dead tissue) would be top-notch breakthrough science even 
today. His problem was not one of methodology but of morality. Just because you 
can do something doesn't mean you should. What you can do is the realm of 
science; what you should do, not so much.

Rick

Dr. Rick Froman, Chair
Division of Humanities and Social Sciences 
Professor of Psychology 
Box 3055
John Brown University 
2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR  72761 
rfro...@jbu.edu
(479)524-7295
http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman


-Original Message-
From: Paul Brandon [mailto:paul.bran...@mnsu.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:40 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to 
reason it away | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian

And of course the picture is not of Victor Frankenstein, but of the monster 
that he created (an icon for Bad Science?).

Paul Brandon
Emeritus Professor of Psychology
Minnesota State University, Mankato
paul.bran...@mnsu.edu

On Jul 13, 2010, at 7:59 AM,wrote:

>  Yes, and we see similar responses around us all the time...even here on 
> TIPS.  But what is up with the picture of Frankenstein?! Perhaps this is Ben 
> G's idea of science?  Perhaps 
> Scott L. might find that of interest re: characterizations of science...and 
> psych?  Findings from Psych,  relevant to our everyday experiences, are even 
> more likely to be challenging and thus lead to rejection of Psych as science? 
> 

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: rfro...@jbu.edu.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8a&n=T&l=tips&o=3556
or send a blank email to 
leave-3556-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3559
or send a blank email to 
leave-3559-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian

2010-07-13 Thread peterson 
Yes, I am familiar with Ben G's writing. Yes, it is indeed Frankenstein's 
monster. I wonder if it is still typically seen however as a representation of 
the horrors of science gone wild. Gary


 
GPeterson
Gary's iPad

On Jul 13, 2010, at 10:03 AM, "Christopher D. Green"  wrote:

>  
> 
> 
> Gary,
> 
> Ben Goldacre's regular Guardian column is called "Bad Science," and is 
> usually concerned with pseudoscience that is in the public eye (homeopathy, 
> chiropractic, "psychic" phenomena, creationism, internet "addiction," etc.). 
> That is why he uses Frankenstein as his icon. 
> 
> Goldacre' column is consistently one of the best public science news column 
> in the English-speaking world. 
> 
> Chris
> -- 
> Christopher D. Green
> Department of Psychology
> York University
> Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
> Canada
> ��
> 416-736-2100 ex. 66164
> chri...@yorku.ca
> http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
> ==
> 
> 
> peter...@svsu.edu wrote:
>> 
>> ��
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, and we see similar responses around us all the time...even here on 
>> TIPS. ��But what is up with the picture of Frankenstein?! Perhaps this is 
>> Ben G's idea of science? ��Perhaps��
>> Scott L. might find that of interest re: characterizations of science...and 
>> psych? ��Findings from Psych, ��relevant to our everyday experiences, are 
>> even more likely to be challenging and thus lead to rejection of Psych as 
>> science? �� 
>> 
>> ��
>> GPeterson
>> Gary's iPad
>> 
>> On Jul 13, 2010, at 12:38 AM, "Christopher D. Green"  
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> ��
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Here is a description of an interesting study that might be of use in a 
>>> critical thinking course (or cognition, or social psych, or methods). 
>>> Apparently when you confront people with evidence that runs contrary to 
>>> their pre-existing beliefs, they not only argue that science cannot address 
>>> the question, they also often generalize that opinion of science to a wide 
>>> range of other topics as well. 
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/03/confirmation-bias-scientific-evidence
>>> 
>>> Chrsi
>>> -- 
>>> Christopher D. Green
>>> Department of Psychology
>>> York University
>>> Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
>>> Canada
>>> ��
>>> 416-736-2100 ex. 66164
>>> chri...@yorku.ca
>>> http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
>>> ==
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> You are currently subscribed to tips as: peter...@svsu.edu.
>>> 
>>> To unsubscribe click here: 
>>> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94b&n=T&l=tips&o=3543
>>> 
>>> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>>> 
>>> or send a blank email to 
>>> leave-3543-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
>>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca.
>> 
>> To unsubscribe click here: 
>> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd0da&n=T&l=tips&o=3551
>> 
>> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>> 
>> or send a blank email to 
>> leave-3551-13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: peter...@svsu.edu.
> 
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94b&n=T&l=tips&o=3555
> 
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
> 
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-3555-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3557
or send a blank email to 
leave-3557-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian

2010-07-13 Thread Paul Brandon 
And of course the picture is not of Victor Frankenstein, but of the monster 
that he created (an icon for Bad Science?).

Paul Brandon
Emeritus Professor of Psychology
Minnesota State University, Mankato
paul.bran...@mnsu.edu

On Jul 13, 2010, at 7:59 AM, 
  wrote:

>  Yes, and we see similar responses around us all the time...even here on 
> TIPS.  But what is up with the picture of Frankenstein?! Perhaps this is Ben 
> G's idea of science?  Perhaps 
> Scott L. might find that of interest re: characterizations of science...and 
> psych?  Findings from Psych,  relevant to our everyday experiences, are even 
> more likely to be challenging and thus lead to rejection of Psych as science? 
> 

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3556
or send a blank email to 
leave-3556-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian

2010-07-13 Thread Christopher D. Green 
Gary,

Ben Goldacre's regular Guardian column is called "Bad Science," and is 
usually concerned with pseudoscience that is in the public eye 
(homeopathy, chiropractic, "psychic" phenomena, creationism, internet 
"addiction," etc.). That is why he uses Frankenstein as his icon.

Goldacre' column is consistently one of the best public science news 
column in the English-speaking world.

Chris
-- 

Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada

 

416-736-2100 ex. 66164
chri...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/

==



peter...@svsu.edu wrote:
>
>  
>
>
> Yes, and we see similar responses around us all the time...even here 
> on TIPS.  But what is up with the picture of Frankenstein?! Perhaps 
> this is Ben G's idea of science?  Perhaps 
> Scott L. might find that of interest re: characterizations of 
> science...and psych?  Findings from Psych,  relevant to our everyday 
> experiences, are even more likely to be challenging and thus lead to 
> rejection of Psych as science? 
>
>  
> GPeterson
> Gary's iPad
>
> On Jul 13, 2010, at 12:38 AM, "Christopher D. Green"  > wrote:
>
>>  
>>
>>
>> Here is a description of an interesting study that might be of use in 
>> a critical thinking course (or cognition, or social psych, or 
>> methods). Apparently when you confront people with evidence that runs 
>> contrary to their pre-existing beliefs, they not only argue that 
>> science cannot address the question, they also often generalize that 
>> opinion of science to a wide range of other topics as well.
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/03/confirmation-bias-scientific-evidence
>>
>> Chrsi
>> -- 
>>
>> Christopher D. Green
>> Department of Psychology
>> York University
>> Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
>> Canada
>>
>>  
>>
>> 416-736-2100 ex. 66164
>> chri...@yorku.ca 
>> http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
>>
>> ==
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> You are currently subscribed to tips as: peter...@svsu.edu 
>> .
>>
>> To unsubscribe click here: 
>> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94b&n=T&l=tips&o=3543
>>  
>> 
>>
>> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is 
>> broken)
>>
>> or send a blank email to 
>> leave-3543-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu 
>> 
>>
>
> ---
>
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca 
> .
>
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd0da&n=T&l=tips&o=3551
>  
> 
>
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-3551-13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu 
> 
>



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3555
or send a blank email to 
leave-3555-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian

2010-07-13 Thread Annette Taylor 
Good eye and very funny: I didn't look closely at the picture and since it was 
next to the byline assumed it was just a picture of the author of the piece in 
the Guardian. LOL. I had to go back and look again after your post because I 
said to myself, I didn't remember seeing frankenstein in that article!

Annette

Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.
Professor, Psychological Sciences
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
tay...@sandiego.edu<mailto:tay...@sandiego.edu>

From: peter...@svsu.edu [peter...@svsu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:59 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to 
reason it away | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian




Yes, and we see similar responses around us all the time...even here on TIPS.  
But what is up with the picture of Frankenstein?! Perhaps this is Ben G's idea 
of science?  Perhaps
Scott L. might find that of interest re: characterizations of science...and 
psych?  Findings from Psych,  relevant to our everyday experiences, are even 
more likely to be challenging and thus lead to rejection of Psych as science?


GPeterson
Gary's iPad

On Jul 13, 2010, at 12:38 AM, "Christopher D. Green" 
<<mailto:chri...@yorku.ca>chri...@yorku.ca<mailto:chri...@yorku.ca>> wrote:




Here is a description of an interesting study that might be of use in a 
critical thinking course (or cognition, or social psych, or methods). 
Apparently when you confront people with evidence that runs contrary to their 
pre-existing beliefs, they not only argue that science cannot address the 
question, they also often generalize that opinion of science to a wide range of 
other topics as well.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/03/confirmation-bias-scientific-evidence><http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/03/confirmation-bias-scientific-evidence>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/03/confirmation-bias-scientific-evidence

Chrsi
--

Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada



416-736-2100 ex. 66164
<mailto:chri...@yorku.ca><mailto:chri...@yorku.ca>chri...@yorku.ca<mailto:chri...@yorku.ca>
<http://www.yorku.ca/christo/><http://www.yorku.ca/christo/>http://www.yorku.ca/christo/

==


---

You are currently subscribed to tips as: <mailto:peter...@svsu.edu> 
<mailto:peter...@svsu.edu> peter...@svsu.edu<mailto:peter...@svsu.edu>.

To unsubscribe click here: 
<http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94b&n=T&l=tips&o=3543>
 
<http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94b&n=T&l=tips&o=3543>
 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94b&n=T&l=tips&o=3543

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to 
<mailto:leave-3543-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu>
 
<mailto:leave-3543-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu>
 
leave-3543-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<mailto:leave-3543-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu>


---

You are currently subscribed to tips as: 
tay...@sandiego.edu<mailto:tay...@sandiego.edu>.

To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a21b0&n=T&l=tips&o=3551

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to 
leave-3551-13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a2...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<mailto:leave-3551-13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a2...@fsulist.frostburg.edu>

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3553
or send a blank email to 
leave-3553-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian

2010-07-13 Thread peterson 
Yes, and we see similar responses around us all the time...even here on TIPS.  
But what is up with the picture of Frankenstein?! Perhaps this is Ben G's idea 
of science?  Perhaps 
Scott L. might find that of interest re: characterizations of science...and 
psych?  Findings from Psych,  relevant to our everyday experiences, are even 
more likely to be challenging and thus lead to rejection of Psych as science?   
  

 
GPeterson
Gary's iPad

On Jul 13, 2010, at 12:38 AM, "Christopher D. Green"  wrote:

>  
> 
> 
> Here is a description of an interesting study that might be of use in a 
> critical thinking course (or cognition, or social psych, or methods). 
> Apparently when you confront people with evidence that runs contrary to their 
> pre-existing beliefs, they not only argue that science cannot address the 
> question, they also often generalize that opinion of science to a wide range 
> of other topics as well. 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/03/confirmation-bias-scientific-evidence
> 
> Chrsi
> -- 
> Christopher D. Green
> Department of Psychology
> York University
> Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
> Canada
>  
> 416-736-2100 ex. 66164
> chri...@yorku.ca
> http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
> ==
> 
> ---
> 
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: peter...@svsu.edu.
> 
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94b&n=T&l=tips&o=3543
> 
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
> 
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-3543-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
> 


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3551
or send a blank email to 
leave-3551-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away

2010-07-13 Thread Mike Palij 
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:07:19 -0700, Michael Smith wrote:
>I wonder if "scientists" are people too.

Ah!  I presume that this statement means that you don't consider
yourself a scientist and have not experienced the insights, understandings,
and attitudes that such a role/state/pattern of living entails.
Yes, Virginia, er., Michael, "scientists" are people too.  They
are like, pardon the influence of the recent World Cup final game,
soccer players/footballers, in that they tend to be highly skilled
people who after years of dedicated practice and education operate
at high level in a variety of areas that most ordinary people without 
such experience cannot achieve.  That being said, scientists and the 
system they operate within are not perfect, nowhere near the blissful 
state of operation in heaven, and are likely to make errors and attempt 
to create means of dealing with those errors.  Y'know, like that moment 
in the final game of the World Cup when De Jong went flying feet first 
into the chest of Xabi Alonso in what seemed like a scene from Shaolin 
Soccer.  I loved it when he only got a yellow card after possibly 
cracking the guy's sternum.  Yes, scientists are people, like footbaalers
are like people, but with fewer opportunities to massage a person's
heart with their toes.

>I hope the implication of the author of the article isn't that science
>can address all issues, which it clearly can't...

Ah, irony!  I love it when it comes so think one can cut it with a knife.
Quoting from the article:

|Research results not consistent with your world view? Then you're 
|likely to believe science can't supply all the answers

and

|When presented with unwelcome scientific evidence, it seems, 
|in a desperate attempt to retain some consistency in their world view, 
|people would rather conclude that science in general is broken. 
|This is an interesting finding. But I'm not sure it makes me very happy.

>especially the social sciences which just aren't on par with the 
>physical sciences.

This is a curious statement because it assumes that there is a common
metric that one can use to compare the achievements in different domains
of the sciences.  I wonder which metric(s) Prof. Smith is using as the
basis for this?  Can he enlighten us?

-Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu



>--Mike

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Christopher D. Green  wrote:
>
>
> Here is a description of an interesting study that might be of use in a
> critical thinking course (or cognition, or social psych, or methods).
> Apparently when you confront people with evidence that runs contrary to
> their pre-existing beliefs, they not only argue that science cannot address
> the question, they also often generalize that opinion of science to a wide
> range of other topics as well.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/03/confirmation-bias-scientific-evidence

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3549
or send a blank email to 
leave-3549-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian

2010-07-13 Thread Michael Smith 
I wonder if "scientists" are people too.

I hope the implication of the author of the article isn't that science
can address all issues, which it clearly can't...especially the social
sciences which just aren't on par with the physical sciences.

--Mike

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Christopher D. Green  wrote:
>
>
> Here is a description of an interesting study that might be of use in a
> critical thinking course (or cognition, or social psych, or methods).
> Apparently when you confront people with evidence that runs contrary to
> their pre-existing beliefs, they not only argue that science cannot address
> the question, they also often generalize that opinion of science to a wide
> range of other topics as well.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/03/confirmation-bias-scientific-evidence
>
> Chrsi
> --
>
> Christopher D. Green
> Department of Psychology
> York University
> Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
> Canada
>
>
>
> 416-736-2100 ex. 66164
> chri...@yorku.ca
> http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
>
> ==
>
> ---
>
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: tipsl...@gmail.com.
>
> To unsubscribe click here:
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13541.42a7e8017ab9578358f118300f4720fb&n=T&l=tips&o=3543
>
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>
> or send a blank email to
> leave-3543-13541.42a7e8017ab9578358f118300f472...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3548
or send a blank email to 
leave-3548-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu