The Refuge of the Toads

[Brive1987]

Michael Faraday would certainly qualify as a scientist ...

Any relation to Daniel?

[welch]

Again, why is it okay for Nye to call himself a science guy. What's the difference between his abuse of the word and hers.

By the way, unless you're in the rarified classic genre, which is very twattish, if you can play an instrument, you're a musician. and the definition of "instrument" is rather generous.

[youtube]hnsQRpgYmaE[/youtube]

and then there's dave grohl:

“When I think about kids watching a TV show like American Idol or The Voice, then they think, ‘Oh, OK, that’s how you become a musician, you stand in line for eight fucking hours with 800 people at a convention center and… then you sing your heart out for someone and then they tell you it’s not fuckin’ good enough.’ Can you imagine?” he implores. “It’s destroying the next generation of musicians! Musicians should go to a yard sale and buy and old fucking drum set and get in their garage and just suck. And get their friends to come in and they’ll suck, too. And then they’ll fucking start playing and they’ll have the best time they’ve ever had in their lives and then all of a sudden they’ll become Nirvana. Because that’s exactly what happened with Nirvana. Just a bunch of guys that had some shitty old instruments and they got together and started playing some noisy-ass shit, and they became the biggest band in the world. That can happen again! You don’t need a fucking computer or the internet or The Voice or American Idol.”

Grohl overstates the nirvana bit just a TAD, but his point is dead on. If you're making music by beating a stick against a rock, you're a fucking musician. You may not be a professional musician, but you're a musician.

It's probably a good thing that Astrophysics is so young. Because there's a lot of shit been discovered by "non-scientists" and luckily, the field is too young to ignore them due to shit like degree and lack of papers published.

I don't think Nye is a scientist either. Scientist and 'science guy' are not equatable terms to me.

I also wasn't a musician. I played the notes on the page as directed. I didn't love it. Zero passion. Didn't put in a fraction of the work the kids who loved it did. Just wanted to be 'well rounded' on college aps. Zero issues dropping the cello and never picking if up again. It is an insult to compare me as a 'musician', to Phil as a Musician.

There is a difference between hobbies/interests, even doing those hobbies well, and those same hobbies as a profession.

I mean why *cant* there be Scientists? If it's something anyone can do, then what separates Jenny McCarthy from Francis Collins?

So now, anyone not in academia with a Ph.D publishing in PubMed or PLOS isn't a scientist. Got it.

This, by the way, is why people have such a shit attitude towards science in this country. Because what you do, or how you do it doesn't matter. If you're not a Ph.D in academia publishing in pubmed or PLOS, you're a hobbyist.

if you're not making money, you're not a musician.

I suppose it's a good thing Mathematics isn't science, they'd have to bin Descartes.

Did nothing Marie Curie did prior to 1903 counts as science, she had no Ph.D. Or did her getting one in 1903 make her pre-doctorate work "real" science retroactively?

George Washington Carver? Nope, not a scientist, no Ph.D. All his work? Hobbiest idlings.
Tesla? Hobbyist, no Ph.D.
Edison? almost no formal education.
Gregor Mendel? Hobbyist, no Ph.D.
Tycho Brahe? Hobbyist, no Ph.D. Heck, Astronomy was barely a field then.
Doesn't look like Darwin had a Ph.D. Hobbyist
Otto Lilenthal: hobbyist, no Ph.D,
The Wright Brothers: Holy fuck, not even a proper high school diploma and never published in an academic journal. Total Hobbyists.
Kelly Johnson: hobbyist, no Ph.D.
Edward Jenner: hobbyist, no Ph.D, hell, no university education period.
Shit, Pasteur didn't have a Ph.D. Guess he was just a very good hobbyist.
Jonas Salk: hobbyist, no Ph.D.

Yes, I'm going to extremes here, but this is based on the rankest kind of elitism. It reduces a MASSIVE field that historically, and even now, has had major discoveries from people who had no degree or weren't in "proper" academic settings.

So if you're going to say you have to have a Ph.D. to be a "real" scientist...well...um...even in your field, you just kneecapped a lot of the giants based on something that even a little research shows isn't any kind of legitimate gatekeeper. Biology and Astronomy/Astrophysics are chock full of people with no doctorate who did groundbreaking work in the field.

as near as I can tell, it's only in Mathematics/Physics that you see Ph.D's oe'er the land.

None of those people I listed had Doctorates. Some of them never even came close to a a peer-reviewed anything. Yet, all actually advanced science. Some were nicer than others, (the wright brothers were Edison-level dicks), but they all advanced science. Just not always via academic avenues.

Seems to me a too-narrow view of "scientist" helps no one. Least of all, other scientists.

[welch]

By the way, unless you're in the rarified classic genre, which is very twattish, if you can play an instrument, you're a musician. and the definition of "instrument" is rather generous.

Quite agree. This is all part of today's unfortunate obsession with credentials. Most fields now have a fixed career path and progression through academia, and sadly there can be no more like Howard Carter, who became one of the leading archaeologists in the word after joining an expedition to Egypt at the age of 17 on the basis of his ability to make accurate drawings, or Henry Rawlinson, who deciphered cuneiform despite being a soldier and diplomat rather than an academic. Not everybody learns best in a formal classroom environment, and I think it's a shame that the academic path is the only acceptable one in an increasing number of fields, locking out the autodidacts, hands-on learners and late developers - especially now that a university education is so expensive.

The hypocrisy in the arts is really bad for the arts.

"Oh, the arts are for everyone!"
"Really? That's cool as hell, because i really want to study music"
"Fuck off loser, where's your high school transcript full of "proper" music background and your audition tapes"
"Wow, you guys are assholes, I'll cheer when your funding is cut"
"WHY DOES EVERYONE HATE THE ARTS"


(because the arts are controlled by jerks. and honestly, the computer field is rapidly going that way.)

[Shatterface]

And just to reiterate-- I have no problems with scicomm. SciBabe is the one who thinks SciComm<<<Scientist. Which is, again, a huge red flag.

The best science journalist is unarguably Carl Zimmer. He has no advanced degrees. He has, however, proven over and over and over and over he is an accurate, knowledgeable, science journalist. He is the only journalist I will willingly speak to, if the opportunity ever arises.

SciBabe could do the same damn thing. Who cares if she is a 'scientist'? If she is a reliable, hard working science communicator, YAY! But we just got "WHY DIDNT YOU CALL ME A SCIENTIST? IM A SCIENTIST YOU MUST BE SEXIST!!!" It sounds like home girl doesn't want to pay her dues as a science communicator, and just wants to jump straight to the top of the credibility pile with "AHM A SCIENTIST! BELIEVES MEH!!"

No.

Now I think she is afraid of hard work. I think she's just an internet fad waiting to die out, and I hope she doesn't do any damage on her way down.

I think the basic problem is she calls herself 'SciBabe' and objects to being called 'SciBabe'. That's so stupid I'm not interested in whether she's a scientist or not. I don't think there are any male scientists who promote themselves as 'ScienceHunk' and then object to being trivialised.

[free thoughtpolice]

Michael J wrote:

I know engineers who have doctorates, do research, publish papers in journals and have to get funding. The definition of a scientists is very rubbery and I think only matters to Academic scientists and scienctist wanna-bes.

I think they would qualify as scientists in a formal sense. If they are doing scientific research and getting it published.
On the other hand the racist Pilates and feminist glaciology things were funded and conducted in academic institutions and I would hate to think of the dingbats behind that as scientists.

[ERV]

I already addressed you PhD concerns *shrug*

You're also citing people who are dead. If you think the next advancement in lung cancer therapy is coming out of someone playing in their backyard on weekends, you're nuts.

And if someone tells you they have a cure for lung cancer, and you don't immediately check their 1) qualifications, 2) where they are employed as a professional scientist, 3) their publications, you're nuts.

[welch]

Welch, I knew my comparison was a mistake and yet still self destructively dove over the cliff. I think my latter comment is a better jab - 'even' Boon recognises that structured work in a peer recognised and peer engaged environment is key. There is a place, especially in formal or public facing contexts, for industry accepted terms. In that context, Musician, Philosopher, Historian, Scientist, Linguist, Network Admin, are earnt titles. Some have certification hurdles, others have peer imposed expectations.

Oh that's just silly given some of your examples. That gorp with a jug band selling CDs in Lower Bugholler is a musician. they may not be FAMOUS, but they aren in fact, musicians. Same thing with the guy busking via two drumsticks and a plastic tub. Network Admin isn't an earnt title, it's a job title. Did you get hired as a Network Admin? Congrats, you're a Network Admin. Doesn't mean you're GOOD, but you are in fact a network admin.

Now, an MCSE, or a CISSP, things with actual specific requirements and certification agencies, sure, you're right there. But most of that stuff you listed is more of a personal thing. I'd not consider Cumspray McGee from FTB to be any kind of historian, but I'd be wrong in that. On the other hand, Kareem Abdul Jabbar has published some really interesting histories. No certification required, just hard work and research.

Who's the "real" historian, Carrier or Jabbar?

[Steersman]

<snip>
You'll have to refer to the source, and ask Matt if you are right that he agrees with your ridiculous shit. I would say that you probably took a jokey comment out of context, in a desperate attempt to find validation.

Didn't look all that "jokey" to me, although maybe I'm only grabbing at straws, or my humour module may be due for an upgrade: ;-)

[Post 20373]

As I commented in that "Bi Any Means" podcast (not sure it hasn't been deleted), if we agree that Dave is a woman then the word ceases to have any meaning or utility at all.

Where exactly did you post that? I eagerly look forward to the clash between your amazingly narrow (ovum based) concept of womanhood and the broad (social justice) conception thereof. Please save me a ringside seat.

LOL. Between those two irrational extremes, lies a stretch of reality wide enough to drive a Peterbilt through.

But Steers is right in one aspect: if Muscato is a woman, than the term 'woman' can mean anything -- thus, nothing.

But maybe he's changed his mind. Or felt that the issue was making stranger bedfellows than he expected - so to speak - or finds to his taste.

[welch]

It's my understanding that Robert Evans, who holds the record in discovering the largest number of supernovae, doesn't have a science degree. Going further back, nor did Faraday, Edison or Mandel.

It would appear that Faraday had almost less of a formal education than Edison, which is from what I can tell, somewhat rare in his field. But interesting as hell to know.

[welch]

And just to reiterate-- I have no problems with scicomm. SciBabe is the one who thinks SciComm<<<Scientist. Which is, again, a huge red flag.

The best science journalist is unarguably Carl Zimmer. He has no advanced degrees. He has, however, proven over and over and over and over he is an accurate, knowledgeable, science journalist. He is the only journalist I will willingly speak to, if the opportunity ever arises.

SciBabe could do the same damn thing. Who cares if she is a 'scientist'? If she is a reliable, hard working science communicator, YAY! But we just got "WHY DIDNT YOU CALL ME A SCIENTIST? IM A SCIENTIST YOU MUST BE SEXIST!!!" It sounds like home girl doesn't want to pay her dues as a science communicator, and just wants to jump straight to the top of the credibility pile with "AHM A SCIENTIST! BELIEVES MEH!!"

No.

Now I think she is afraid of hard work. I think she's just an internet fad waiting to die out, and I hope she doesn't do any damage on her way down.

I hope she doesn't. She's been one of the few willing to take on and win against idiots like Vani Hari. Who is actually hurting people.

[blitzem]

And just to reiterate-- I have no problems with scicomm. SciBabe is the one who thinks SciComm<<<Scientist. Which is, again, a huge red flag.

The best science journalist is unarguably Carl Zimmer. He has no advanced degrees. He has, however, proven over and over and over and over he is an accurate, knowledgeable, science journalist. He is the only journalist I will willingly speak to, if the opportunity ever arises.

SciBabe could do the same damn thing. Who cares if she is a 'scientist'? If she is a reliable, hard working science communicator, YAY! But we just got "WHY DIDNT YOU CALL ME A SCIENTIST? IM A SCIENTIST YOU MUST BE SEXIST!!!" It sounds like home girl doesn't want to pay her dues as a science communicator, and just wants to jump straight to the top of the credibility pile with "AHM A SCIENTIST! BELIEVES MEH!!"

No.

Now I think she is afraid of hard work. I think she's just an internet fad waiting to die out, and I hope she doesn't do any damage on her way down.

How about potholer54? I don't want to risk the doxing ban, but he has a video

[youtube]2YMxpqYEjyo[/youtube]

on his channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCljE1O ... 9xx9eWq0GQ

where he spends some time talking about who he is. Spent a lot of time in Asia, also reported for the CBC, etc. His videos debunking climate deniers are, imho, quite well done.

[Xenu]

Mykeru is back on twitter with a new account, for anyone who cares
https://twitter.com/MykeruRevenge

[CommanderTuvok]

First I've heard of this Cry-Babe character. Sorry, "sci-babe".

It is common-place now for underachievers and wasters of space to cry about something, to drum up publicity or $$$$$. Something that Twatson does ALL OF THE TIME. I want her to struggle financially.

[welch]

The irony here, is how many people now jumping on the OMG Ph.D IS A REQUIREMENT were so very pissed when PZ/Laden/other superannuated holders of The Sacred Degree shat all over Abbie *solely* because she didn't have?

A Ph.D. She'd published, but hey, no degree, Not A Scientist, Not Worth Listening To.

It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.

[Sunder]

How about potholer54? I don't want to risk the doxing ban, but he has a video

2YMxpqYEjyo

on his channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCljE1O ... 9xx9eWq0GQ

where he spends some time talking about who he is. Spent a lot of time in Asia, also reported for the CBC, etc. His videos debunking climate deniers are, imho, quite well done.

Potholer's fucking great. I always grin when I see him pop up in my youtube subs because his videos are a rare treat.

This video is required viewing for every skeptic:

[youtube]07NMglQX6gE[/youtube]

[welch]

I already addressed you PhD concerns *shrug*

You're also citing people who are dead. If you think the next advancement in lung cancer therapy is coming out of someone playing in their backyard on weekends, you're nuts.

And if someone tells you they have a cure for lung cancer, and you don't immediately check their 1) qualifications, 2) where they are employed as a professional scientist, 3) their publications, you're nuts.

I'm going to point out that prior to him turning into a blithering, dangerous idiot, Wakefield nailed everything in your list other than a Ph.D. Linus Pauling had multiple doctorates, a sterling employment and publication record, two nobel prizes, and if you took most of the last ten years of his life seriously....yeah.

And you're dodging the point. The history of Science is based on the real work done by people who did not have degrees. Including some of the seminal figures in biology and immunology. In some fields, they never published dick in a "peer reviewed journal"

Also Cancer research is not the entirety of science. No, I don't expect the next major advance in theoretical physics to come from some dude on the corner. But if you're going to redefine all of science to a small number of fields that have really stringent requirements to even fully understand, much less do anything in, you're shitting all over science as a whole.

But if you want to know why so many americans see science and scientists in such a poor light, the elitism isn't helping.

[Steersman]

It was an allusion to the descriptist-prescriptivist sides of linguistics:

In the study of language, description or descriptive linguistics is the work of objectively analyzing and describing how language is actually used (or how it was used in the past) by a group of people in a speech community.

All scholarly research in linguistics is descriptive; like all other sciences, its aim is to observe the linguistic world as it is, without the bias of preconceived ideas about how it ought to be. ....

Linguistic description is often contrasted with linguistic prescription, which is found especially in education and in publishing. Prescription seeks to define standard language forms and give advice on effective language use, ....

A prescriptive grammarian, on the other hand, would analyze the rules and conventions behind the statements made and determine which statement is correct according to those rules. ....

Kind of anti-intellectual if not clueless to insist that usage is the only factor or side of the discipline to be considered.

So to counter my argument you quote several paragraphs which unequivocally support my argument (''All scholarly research in linguistics is descriptive; like all other sciences, its aim is to observe the linguistic world as it is, without the bias of preconceived ideas about how it ought to be'') followed by a fourth which is about prescriptive grammar, not semantics???

Nice bit of motivated reasoning and no small amount of blather. For one thing, "all scholarly research in linguistics" is hardly all of linguistics - which you would have realized if you'd bothered to read with any honest attention to detail - like the phrase "linguistic description is often contrasted with linguistic prescription". Does that really look to you like it is saying that "linguistic description" is the be-all and end-all of linguistics? Much less of language itself? Hint: note all the suheadings under the topic in the sidebar in the article.

<snip>
Only you think ''menopausal woman'' is a contradiction in terms since only you believe producing ova is a necessary and sufficient condition for being a woman.

Maybe because it's really only become an issue as a result of transwomen trying to claim the term? [cf, Cavanaugh, Matt] But I wonder whether you even accept the idea that there are, in fact, "necessary and sufficient" conditions or attributes for a defintion to be applicable; I wonder whether you too, apparently along with Brive, would be prepared to buy a "car" that didn't have an engine.

[H. Korban]

It's probably a good thing that Astrophysics is so young. Because there's a lot of shit been discovered by "non-scientists" and luckily, the field is too young to ignore them due to shit like degree and lack of papers published.

Can you point out some examples? Who are these non scientists who have been discovering astrophysical results in copious quantities? Please give examples. To make you claim credible you should also contrast this "lot of shit been discovered by "non-scientists"" with stuff coming out of leading astrophysical program, and tell us numbers. Say, are non-scientists producing 10% of the discoveries? 20%? or 0.0001%? Or less? You may show us a list of papers published by non-scientists and then divide the number of papers in say ApJ. No generic statements, please.

Incidentally, most people do not understand how science is done. Its not simply a matter of making claims and testing them. In that sense everyone who exercises some degree of skepticism does "science". Modern science is very complex. Its not like taking a stick and banging it on a desk and then calling oneself a musician. Modern science, at least vast majority of it, can only be done in specialized labs and with very significant amount of training. Its unlikely to find this in a person's basement, or without spending time doing research oneself, under the tutelage of experts. Ask yourself if its possible to learn surgery by sitting in your kitchen playing with your kitchen knives.

SciBabe is doing an important job of popularizing some aspects of science. However, to call her a scientist is pretty absurd. In general, advancing frontiers is very important. Not simply propagating what is known. Again, I am not saying that popularizing is not important. Its not what majority of scientists do. Advancing frontiers is not going to happen if you simply regurgitate what is already known. No one gets promotion in major labs or universities for writing a paper about what everyone already knows about.

I should also point out that a PhD is not really needed. Journals do not have degrees requirements for submitting a paper. However, in top schools earning a PhD shows a serious commitment to actually doing science.

Incidentally, this whole argument is pointless, in some ways. SciBabe can call herself whatever she want. Scientist, astrophysicist, brain surgeon … whatever. It does not matter what she identifies herself as. Others have a right to judge her claims and ask simple questions as to number of papers published, grad students mentored or contribution to general advancement of some scientific sub-field. One may say that SciBabe is as much a scientist as Muscato is a woman. Sure, in her mind she is convinced, but others reserve the right to call out BS where they see it.

[ERV]

I already addressed you PhD concerns *shrug*

You're also citing people who are dead. If you think the next advancement in lung cancer therapy is coming out of someone playing in their backyard on weekends, you're nuts.

And if someone tells you they have a cure for lung cancer, and you don't immediately check their 1) qualifications, 2) where they are employed as a professional scientist, 3) their publications, you're nuts.

I'm going to point out that prior to him turning into a blithering, dangerous idiot, Wakefield nailed everything in your list other than a Ph.D. Linus Pauling had multiple doctorates, a sterling employment and publication record, two nobel prizes, and if you took most of the last ten years of his life seriously....yeah.

And you're dodging the point. The history of Science is based on the real work done by people who did not have degrees. Including some of the seminal figures in biology and immunology. In some fields, they never published dick in a "peer reviewed journal"

Also Cancer research is not the entirety of science. No, I don't expect the next major advance in theoretical physics to come from some dude on the corner. But if you're going to redefine all of science to a small number of fields that have really stringent requirements to even fully understand, much less do anything in, you're shitting all over science as a whole.

But if you want to know why so many americans see science and scientists in such a poor light, the elitism isn't helping.

Science corrected for Wakefield via standard experiments + journal publishing. Pauling shit was discredited with standard experiments + journal publishing. Not by the Wright brothers.

And your 'if you can dream it, you can be it' attitude is why people don't respect actual authority figures. What professionals do, in every field, not just science, is elite. Hell, my current project is 100% immunology, and I would never call myself an immunologist. It assumes a set of knowledge and skills I don't have. I cannot think of any reason someone might *demand* to be called a 'Scientist!', when they are not a professional scientist, if not for nefarious reasons.

[H. Korban]

To add a minor point: this argument about the word "scientist" essentially is another manifestation of the post-modern devaluation of expertise. Now, everyone can call themselves a scientist. Why not a brain surgeon or heart specialist or anything else? I suggest we all call ourselves whatever we like. Why not? Words in the post-modern world have no meaning, and in any case, there is no need for any expertise whatsoever as asking specific questions to show commonly accepted standards of excellence is probably ableist or sexist or racist or something else.

[H. Korban]

But if you want to know why so many americans see science and scientists in such a poor light, the elitism isn't helping.

Can I ask you if you consider an Olympic runner "elite"? And, also, just so we know your stance, do you consider being elite or elitism a bad thing?

[Old_ones]

I already addressed you PhD concerns *shrug*

You're also citing people who are dead. If you think the next advancement in lung cancer therapy is coming out of someone playing in their backyard on weekends, you're nuts.

And if someone tells you they have a cure for lung cancer, and you don't immediately check their 1) qualifications, 2) where they are employed as a professional scientist, 3) their publications, you're nuts.

I would argue that you could probably dispense with the background check. You could ask about the study design, the survival advantage compared with controls, and the mechanism of action of the therapy, and come up with a pretty good idea of whether the person was worth taking seriously. I realize that it would probably be impossible to do serious cancer research outside of a research hospital, but not every field requires the kind of infrastructure that biomedical research does.

People who actually have credentials (or claim credentials) can also be incompetent. I don't really feel I need to motivate that with the story I'm about to tell, but I find the story funny, so I'll write it out anyway.

My cousin once introduced me to an acquaintance of his as a "chemist"; let's call the acquaintance "Bill". Bill gets excited and wants to "talk about some chemistry". He spends the next 20 min trying to convince me that he's discovered a way to synthesize LSD by treating aspirin tablets with hydrogen peroxide. He told me he knew he'd made LSD because he rubbed the mixture of aspirin and H2O2 on the belly of a mouse, and it acted like it was tripping. I asked him what spectroscopic techniques he'd used to characterize the LSD, and how he accounted for the lack of structural similarity between aspirin and LSD. He responded by telling me that he worked in a materials science department somewhere (at some specific university I can't remember) and that he sold the LSD to someone with "like three masters degrees", and he was pretty sure that person knew more about chemistry than me. I did not feel I had been put in my place, even though I only held a bachelors degree at the time. I "strongly suspect" that guy was making the whole thing up, but he would still obviously be a moron even if he had tricked someone into hiring him.

[Shatterface]

It's probably a good thing that Astrophysics is so young. Because there's a lot of shit been discovered by "non-scientists" and luckily, the field is too young to ignore them due to shit like degree and lack of papers published.

Can you point out some examples? Who are these non scientists who have been discovering astrophysical results in copious quantities? Please give examples. To make you claim credible you should also contrast this "lot of shit been discovered by "non-scientists"" with stuff coming out of leading astrophysical program, and tell us numbers. Say, are non-scientists producing 10% of the discoveries? 20%? or 0.0001%? Or less? You may show us a list of papers published by non-scientists and then divide the number of papers in say ApJ. No generic statements, please.

I've already mentioned Robert Evans:

Awards
In 1985 he received, with Gregg Thompson, the Amateur Achievement Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific for his observations of supernovae.
In 1986 he received the Berenice and Arthur Page Award from the Astronomical Society of Australia for visual discoveries of supernovae.
The American Association of Variable Star Observers has awarded him their Nova/Supernova Award on fifteen separate occasions.
He was awarded the Centenary Medal of the Société astronomique de France.
He is an honorary member of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada.
He is a member of the International Astronomical Union, and the Astronomical Society of Australia.
He received the Medal of the Order of Australia (OAM) in 1988 for his contributions to science.
In 1996 the Astronomical Society of New South Wales awarded Evans their most prestigious honour, the McNiven Medal.

List of supernova discoveries

Visual
SN 1981A in NGC 1532. Type II.
SN 1981D in NGC 1316. Type Ia.
SN 1983G in NGC 4753. Type Ia.
SN 1983N in NGC 5236. (M83.) Prototype of Type Ib.
SN 1983S in NGC 1448. Type II.
SN 1983V in NGC 1365. Type Ic.
SN 1984E in NGC 3169. Type II.
SN 1984J in NGC 1559. Type II.
SN 1984L in NGC 991. Prototype of Type Ib.
SN 1984N in NGC 7184. Type I.
SN 1985P in NGC 1433. Type II
SN 1986A in NGC 3367. Type Ia.
SN 1986G in NGC 5128. (Cen A.) Type Ia.
SN 1986L in NGC 1559. Type II.
SN 1987B in NGC 5850. Type II.
SN 1987N in NGC 7606. Type Ia.
SN 1988A in NGC 4579. (M58.) Type II.
SN 1989B in NGC 3627. (M66.) Type Ia.
SN 1990K in NGC 150. Type II.
SN 1990M in NGC 5493. Type Ia.
SN 1990W in NGC 6221. Type Ic.
SN 1991T in NGC 4527. Type Ia
SN 1991X in NGC 4902. Type Ia.
SN 1992ad in NGC 4411b Type II.
SN 1992ba in NGC 2082. Type II.
SN 1993L in IC 5270. Type Ia.
SN 1995G in NGC 1643. Type II.
SN 1995V in NGC 1087. Type II.
SN 1995ad in NGC 2139. Type II.
SN 1996X in NGC 5061. Type Ia.
SN 1996al in NGC 7689. Type II.
SN 1997bp in NGC 4680. Type Ia.
SN 2000cj in NGC 6753. Type Ia.
SN 2001du in NGC 1365. Type II.
SN 2001ig in NGC 7424. Type IIb.
SN 2003B in NGC 1097. Type II.
SN 2003gd in NGC 628 (M74.) Type II.
SN 2003gs in NGC 936 Type Ia.
SN 2003hn in NGC 1448 Type II.
SN 2005df in NGC 1559 Type Ia.
SN 2007it in NGC 5530 Type II.
SN 2008aw in NGC 4939 Type II.

Photographic
SN 1988ai in ESO 293g34. (found in 2002.)
SN 1996A. anonymous galaxy. Type II.
SN 1996O. MCG +03- 41- 115. Type Ia.
SN 1996ad. anonymous galaxy.
SN 1996as. anonymous galaxy. Type II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Evans_(astronomer)

And no, it's not necessary to contrast his individual achievements with the entire astronomical programme because that's bullshit.

[d4m10n]

It was pretty disgusting dirt and hygiene-wise. Plus the toilets stunk and were filthy because they were "porta-Janes" and not flushable. Note the name change there from porta-John to porta-Jane.

Makes perfect sense if you think of women as a toilet.

More like if you think of men as toilets. The only men allowed on the land, were the ones who came in on the porta cleaning trucks. It was at around 2am so that the evil men wouldn't see us naked and semi-naked women (gotta say, the walking around naked part was fun), or scare us by letting us see them in the daylight. They were accompanied by volunteer dykes to guard them while they lowered the truck's vacuum hose into each toilet, emptying them. So, the matriarchy still needs men to do the shit work.

Good to know there will still be a place for us in Herland.

[Shatterface]

But if you want to know why so many americans see science and scientists in such a poor light, the elitism isn't helping.

Can I ask you if you consider an Olympic runner "elite"? And, also, just so we know your stance, do you consider being elite or elitism a bad thing?

I wouldn't consider an Olympic runner faster than a faster runner just because they had an Olympic medal.

[Shatterface]

Science corrected for Wakefield via standard experiments + journal publishing. Pauling shit was discredited with standard experiments + journal publishing. Not by the Wright brothers.

Science corrected for Wakefield, but until it did, he was a scientist, by any criteria. Same with Pauling.

[fuzzy]

[youtube]2pWSwfVDiq8[/youtube]

[Tigzy]

@Shatterface

Think you've missed the field Korban and Welch were specifying, as Robert Evans isn't an astrophysicist.

[Shatterface]

@Shatterface

Think you've missed the field Korban and Welch were specifying, as Robert Evans isn't an astrophysicist.

So Korban wants to specify a tiny subset of a tiny subset of physics to dismiss the entire field of amateur science?

[Tigzy]

@Shatterface

Think you've missed the field Korban and Welch were specifying, as Robert Evans isn't an astrophysicist.

So Korban wants to specify a tiny subset of a tiny subset of physics to dismiss the entire field of amateur science?

I dunno. I've suddenly become not all that interested owing to an outbreak of mirth at seeing this:

http://i.imgur.com/zJ1OZua.jpg

[Shatterface]

To add a minor point: this argument about the word "scientist" essentially is another manifestation of the post-modern devaluation of expertise. Now, everyone can call themselves a scientist. Why not a brain surgeon or heart specialist or anything else? I suggest we all call ourselves whatever we like. Why not? Words in the post-modern world have no meaning, and in any case, there is no need for any expertise whatsoever as asking specific questions to show commonly accepted standards of excellence is probably ableist or sexist or racist or something else.

You could argue that scientists engaged in highly abstract fields that are impossible to test - such as string theory - aren't scientists.

If that field turns out to be a dead end then they have been indulging in a postmodern exercise in studying signifiers without a signified.

[welch]

I already addressed you PhD concerns *shrug*

You're also citing people who are dead. If you think the next advancement in lung cancer therapy is coming out of someone playing in their backyard on weekends, you're nuts.

And if someone tells you they have a cure for lung cancer, and you don't immediately check their 1) qualifications, 2) where they are employed as a professional scientist, 3) their publications, you're nuts.

I'm going to point out that prior to him turning into a blithering, dangerous idiot, Wakefield nailed everything in your list other than a Ph.D. Linus Pauling had multiple doctorates, a sterling employment and publication record, two nobel prizes, and if you took most of the last ten years of his life seriously....yeah.

And you're dodging the point. The history of Science is based on the real work done by people who did not have degrees. Including some of the seminal figures in biology and immunology. In some fields, they never published dick in a "peer reviewed journal"

Also Cancer research is not the entirety of science. No, I don't expect the next major advance in theoretical physics to come from some dude on the corner. But if you're going to redefine all of science to a small number of fields that have really stringent requirements to even fully understand, much less do anything in, you're shitting all over science as a whole.

But if you want to know why so many americans see science and scientists in such a poor light, the elitism isn't helping.

Science corrected for Wakefield via standard experiments + journal publishing. Pauling shit was discredited with standard experiments + journal publishing. Not by the Wright brothers.

yeah, not like the wright brothers did anything resembling science. Langley did all the real work I suppose.

And your 'if you can dream it, you can be it' attitude is why people don't respect actual authority figures. What professionals do, in every field, not just science, is elite. Hell, my current project is 100% immunology, and I would never call myself an immunologist. It assumes a set of knowledge and skills I don't have. I cannot think of any reason someone might *demand* to be called a 'Scientist!', when they are not a professional scientist, if not for nefarious reasons.

Never mind.

You've made up your mind and the way you are strawmanning me with shit I never said nor came close to proves that. Good job. I'm sure that's how science does it.

[katamari Damassi]

Not to bring up the tiresome toilet wars again, but a conservative group in the US plans to send men into the women's restrooms at Target, to test out their restroom policy. While I personally don't care what restroom anyone uses, nor do I believe anyone is in danger from dudes in dresses pissing in the ladies room, I'm glad they're doing this because I think it might challenge the trendy pomo "if we change the meaning of the word gender then reality changes along with it" nonsense.

[Billie from Ockham]

But if you want to know why so many americans see science and scientists in such a poor light, the elitism isn't helping.

I'd ask if you knew how most Americans view scientists, but the above claim already answered the question.

[welch]

But if you want to know why so many americans see science and scientists in such a poor light, the elitism isn't helping.

Can I ask you if you consider an Olympic runner "elite"? And, also, just so we know your stance, do you consider being elite or elitism a bad thing?

Being elite? no. That's (usually, with exceptions), a result of hard work to get to the top of one's field. Being elite can be a heck of an accomplishment.

Elitism I find rarely does any good regardless of application. It takes things, like science or computer programming, or music from things that everyone should be encouraged to study and be good with, even if that's not their career, and moves them onto pedestals that say "If you aren't one of us, fuck you, don't even bother."

When I see the FOSS lot and their "if you can't program, you shouldn't even use a computer" attitude, it infuriates me, because it takes people who might have a nascent interest in things beyond "load software, run software" and tells them "don't even bother."

And it's a dangerous thing. Scientific elitism disconnects science from the rest of the world. It creates this huge gulf to where "average" people don't even bother to understand the basics. Why should they, when you need a Ph.D to even be allowed to have an opinion. Then those people become politicians and don't understand why basic research is important. Fruit Flies? WTF, FRUIT FLIES.

Carl Zimmer is a great writer, but outside of the science community, who the fuck knows about him? I mean, look at who he writes for. Preaching to the converted much? The population of Frog Balls AK doesn't know shit about Carl Zimmer, which is a shame. But he's not a factor outside of the scientific community, not really.

Scibabe is, and since Science, other than a really, REALLY small number of Scientists™ has almost completely ceded science communication to the amateurs, to the outsiders, then when Scibabe does something stupid, or says something wrong, rather than sharpening the knives and chortling with glee, maybe send her some...I dunno, rational emails that have good info and no condescension?

being elite is great. Being an elitist, not so much.

[BoxNDox]

The real stumbling block in my program was passing your oral qualifying exam.

That's the way that it's supposed to me, IMO. Weed out those who won't make it at comps/quals (i.e., at the end of two years). Don't keep them around for another two or three and then toss them out. It's a waste of time and money for the school (esp. the advisor) and seriously uncool to the student.

I've never been at a school that "grades" dissertations; it's always been pass/fail. The closest I've seen is awards for best dissertation.

What gets you interviews for actual jobs is a combination of where you got your PhD, your vita (i.e., pubs and honors), and (maybe most of all) your letters of rec. What gets you an offer is mostly your job-talk (because that's all that the people who aren't on the search committee will probably know about you and the other candidates).

Don't forget:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Streleski

[welch]

But if you want to know why so many americans see science and scientists in such a poor light, the elitism isn't helping.

I'd ask if you knew how most Americans view scientists, but the above claim already answered the question.

I live in the south, and I used to live in the midwest. Since 2003, I've been surrounded by the "average" idiot. I pay attention to what they say. I don't agree, but I listen. (It's why I'm unsurprised by Trump, and similarly unsurprised at how many people know nothing about how he is so fucking popular.)

I also read things that proles read, like newspapers. The only part of STEM that people in the US, by and large have a great opinion on is the computer field, and honestly, that's because you can make bank in it than anything else. Look at what happens to science in Congress, hell has been happening since Gingrich got the speakership. When Sarah Palin mocked fruit fly research, it wasn't just rednecks agreeing with her.

There are a ton, at least in the US, of people who have no real idea why some of this esoteric shit is important. Until something bad happens. But two weeks later, meh.

Science, by and large since the end of Apollo, has done a remarkably shit job of PR. Then it wonders why its funding keeps getting cut.

for a field full of Ph.D's, it's kind of fucking stupid that way.

[H. Korban]

To add a minor point: this argument about the word "scientist" essentially is another manifestation of the post-modern devaluation of expertise. Now, everyone can call themselves a scientist. Why not a brain surgeon or heart specialist or anything else? I suggest we all call ourselves whatever we like. Why not? Words in the post-modern world have no meaning, and in any case, there is no need for any expertise whatsoever as asking specific questions to show commonly accepted standards of excellence is probably ableist or sexist or racist or something else.

You could argue that scientists engaged in highly abstract fields that are impossible to test - such as string theory - aren't scientists.

If that field turns out to be a dead end then they have been indulging in a postmodern exercise in studying signifiers without a signified.

Two points: First, its possible that string theory is just nonsense. Its my personal view, but it still remains to be seen. Second, abstract theory, even if not directly testable, in itself does not disqualify it as science. Most abstract theory is untestable directly in any case. As string theory, in the low energy regime, goes to what is well known and tested, one may claim its pretty solidly scientific. It may be wrong, of course, but it's a perfectly good example of science.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Question for our physicians:

I have a friend staying with a new BF who is acting erratically and is currently on Escitalopram, Mirtazapine and Trazodone. Should she fear for her safety? (He's suicidal but she just emptied out the shells)

[H. Korban]

@Shatterface

Think you've missed the field Korban and Welch were specifying, as Robert Evans isn't an astrophysicist.

So Korban wants to specify a tiny subset of a tiny subset of physics to dismiss the entire field of amateur science?

In case you missed the context, Welch specifically mentioned "astrophysics". Not me. I explicitly said that a PhD is not required to do science. But, doing science, and writing about it are two different things. I don't call myself a science journalist even though I publish papers in journals. Thats all. No need to elaborate further.

[jimhabegger]

Steersman, if I understand what you were getting at in the discussion about the meanings of "men" and "women," I might agree with you. Please see my comment in the Unisex bathrooms thread.

[free thoughtpolice]

To add a minor point: this argument about the word "scientist" essentially is another manifestation of the post-modern devaluation of expertise. Now, everyone can call themselves a scientist. Why not a brain surgeon or heart specialist or anything else? I suggest we all call ourselves whatever we like. Why not? Words in the post-modern world have no meaning, and in any case, there is no need for any expertise whatsoever as asking specific questions to show commonly accepted standards of excellence is probably ableist or sexist or racist or something else.

You could argue that scientists engaged in highly abstract fields that are impossible to test - such as string theory - aren't scientists.

If that field turns out to be a dead end then they have been indulging in a postmodern exercise in studying signifiers without a signified.

Something wrong with that?

[BoxNDox]

I think XKCD is full of shit on a regular basis, but the point in this one was quite good:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/unscientific.png

Yeah, Yvette said something fucking stupid on Twitter. So does Dawkins, and with regularity. If I'm going to forgive him (or Neil Tyson's blatant misunderstanding of how modern aircraft, much less helicopters, function), then I'll forgive her. As long as she doesn't lose her fucking mind, whatever.

I haz a sad over the failure to make a joke about branes in that strip.

[Couch]

Electric campgrounds, who'd of thought! The last time I went camping was in 88 at the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. Total disillusionment. It was just dawning on me how fucked up the whole lesbian/feminist/separatist ideology was. My friend that drove there with me hated it even more than me, and we left early. Shook the nasty festival off of us by going on a spontaneous 1 week drive around the Blue Ridge mountains and nearby areas. That year, most women at the festival caught shigella. We lucked out by leaving early and also eating more at this little junk food store there than at the main food tent.

I know I'm an asshole, but I find that kind of funny. Isn't the slogan for that festival something like "This is what the world would look like if women were in charge"? I guess lesbian separatists might not be the best people to demonstrate the coming feminist utopia.

I've been to electric campgrounds before and didn't enjoy the experience a lot. The sites were close together, and having outlets around greatly increases the chances of having someone ruining the atmosphere with Toby Keith or Rush Limbaugh.

It was pretty disgusting dirt and hygiene-wise. Plus the toilets stunk and were filthy because they were "porta-Janes" and not flushable. Note the name change there from porta-John to porta-Jane, which is of course because men and anything that's a reminder of them and their evil ways are bad and must be obliterated. The showers were cold, open waterpipes over bare ground. My feet would be immediately dirty before being able to even get to my shoes. I brought a portable solar shower a few times so I wouldn't freeze my ass off under the water, but not after the incident where I hung it up in a tree over a hornet's nest. Even at that congregation of weirdos, I must have looked pretty strange running and freaking out along the busy pathway, swatting at myself and trying to outrun the hornets. Good times.

He he. Nice image. I actually, as opposed to figuratively, lol'd.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

I am now a scientist. Who knew? In addition to Captain, you must now address me as Chef, Marksman, Bladesmith, Artist, Musician, Engineer, plumber, software engineer, Science Sasquatch (but if you call me that instead of Scientist, I'll whine on Twitter, boo boo) and many more things I will only think of after you get it wrong, making you a sexist pig. Even though that is how I refer to myself at present and my only claim to fame.

[Lsuoma]

It is implicit that a PhD is generally required to gain traction within the "scientific community". Though I guess it may be possible to somehow avoid that cred and still get into a position where you are taken seriously. :think:

It's certainly possible in astronomy, where contributions from amateurs are sought after and valued - though obviously after having passed muster with the pros, of course. Patrick Moore, for example, never gained a professional science qualification in his life, yet was recognised as a major authority when it came to the Moon - to the extent that his lunar maps were consulted by NASA in their preparations for Apollo 11.

He even had a complete catalogue of celestial objects named after him.

[John D]

But if you want to know why so many americans see science and scientists in such a poor light, the elitism isn't helping.

I'd ask if you knew how most Americans view scientists, but the above claim already answered the question.

I live in the south, and I used to live in the midwest. Since 2003, I've been surrounded by the "average" idiot. I pay attention to what they say. I don't agree, but I listen. (It's why I'm unsurprised by Trump, and similarly unsurprised at how many people know nothing about how he is so fucking popular.)

I also read things that proles read, like newspapers. The only part of STEM that people in the US, by and large have a great opinion on is the computer field, and honestly, that's because you can make bank in it than anything else. Look at what happens to science in Congress, hell has been happening since Gingrich got the speakership. When Sarah Palin mocked fruit fly research, it wasn't just rednecks agreeing with her.

There are a ton, at least in the US, of people who have no real idea why some of this esoteric shit is important. Until something bad happens. But two weeks later, meh.

Science, by and large since the end of Apollo, has done a remarkably shit job of PR. Then it wonders why its funding keeps getting cut.

for a field full of Ph.D's, it's kind of fucking stupid that way.

This ^^^^. I agree 100% with Welch on this one. I figure that when he and I agree it must be true... cause we almost never agree. (not that this means I am more right than he is).

It is "scientists" who told Americans to eat a low fat diet. It is scientists who, in the 1970s, told us there would be in an ice age soon. It was scientists who said we would all starve by 1980. Scientists are often (not always) funding whores.

[Service Dog]

The US Army requires a Bachelor's degree for the job title "Scientist" for active-duty personnel, and a Master's degree for reservists.

http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/ ... ntist.html


Even so, I think the rigor ERV advocates is mandatory for a functional society, while 'sharing' the title more broadly is optional at best.

[Couch]

I would def. go to SlymeStock 2017.

I expect, through sheer weight of numbers, it would need to be in the pacific northwest. Can you get your entire body Goretexed? - asking for a friend.

There's enough antipodean pitters for a charter plane, or at least bulk seat purchase. 1 litre Absolut Vodka is AUD29 at Sydney Airport, not that I obsessively note these things.

It will be held on my ranch. You bring the booze, I provide the mud.

Can't we have a bit of cultured slyme? Come to France! I have a stocked wine cellar and 11 spare bedrooms. Phil could provide the music, and Brive could do guided tours of, umm... Brive. :rimshot:

Um, 11 rooms? Que? Is this your home or is it a holiday house? Where about in France is it?

[H. Korban]

It is "scientists" who told Americans to eat a low fat diet. It is scientists who, in the 1970s, told us there would be in an ice age soon. It was scientists who said we would all starve by 1980. Scientists are often (not always) funding whores.

Perhaps you are looking for an infallible way to correctly answer all the questions every facing mankind. Maybe you should look into religion.

[Shatterface]

I am now a scientist. Who knew? In addition to Captain, you must now address me as Chef, Marksman, Bladesmith, Artist, Musician, Engineer, plumber, software engineer, Science Sasquatch (but if you call me that instead of Scientist, I'll whine on Twitter, boo boo) and many more things I will only think of after you get it wrong, making you a sexist pig. Even though that is how I refer to myself at present and my only claim to fame.

Nobody is arguing that anyone can call themselves a 'scientist', just that being a scientist is about practicing science rather than having a few letters after your name.

Someone cataloguing nebulae in his garden shed is practicing science; someone hypothesising extra dimensions too small to see, even if light could propagate along those dimensions, might as well be playing Sudoku on Calabi-Yau manifolds.

[Easy J]

Not to bring up the tiresome toilet wars again, but a conservative group in the US plans to send men into the women's restrooms at Target, to test out their restroom policy. While I personally don't care what restroom anyone uses, nor do I believe anyone is in danger from dudes in dresses pissing in the ladies room, I'm glad they're doing this because I think it might challenge the trendy pomo "if we change the meaning of the word gender then reality changes along with it" nonsense.

I've been waiting for this & just assumed everyone saw this coming & had a hypothetical plan or argument in place. It's the first thing I pictured when this bathroom crap came up. No way can they be planning to implement this without a contingency plan for when a bunch of dudes troll the fuck out of the situation & women cease to be comfortable using the restrooms. Surely they have a legal department that gets paid to think about this stuff for them.

[comhcinc]

No offensive to this scientist on this board but if the world goes to shit tomorrow you are useless and you know who people will look to?

Potters.

Person ain't shit without a pot.


/Not a potter.
// Not being paid by the Potter's Council of America

[free thoughtpolice]

It is "scientists" who told Americans to eat a low fat diet. It is scientists who, in the 1970s, told us there would be in an ice age soon. It was scientists who said we would all starve by 1980. Scientists are often (not always) funding whores.

Perhaps you are looking for an infallible way to correctly answer all the questions every facing mankind. Maybe you should look into religion.

You're arguing with an engineer here not a scientist.
It was engineers that told us we would all have hover cars by 1983, engineers told us that burning jet fuel couldn't bring down the Twin Towers...

[Shatterface]

He even had a complete catalogue of celestial objects named after him.

SF author Roger Zelazny has a crustacean name after him.

Which is more than Myers can say.

[Guestus Aurelius]

To add a minor point: this argument about the word "scientist" essentially is another manifestation of the post-modern devaluation of expertise. Now, everyone can call themselves a scientist. Why not a brain surgeon or heart specialist or anything else? I suggest we all call ourselves whatever we like. Why not? Words in the post-modern world have no meaning, and in any case, there is no need for any expertise whatsoever as asking specific questions to show commonly accepted standards of excellence is probably ableist or sexist or racist or something else.

You could argue that scientists engaged in highly abstract fields that are impossible to test - such as string theory - aren't scientists.

If that field turns out to be a dead end then they have been indulging in a postmodern exercise in studying signifiers without a signified.

Two points: First, its possible that string theory is just nonsense. Its my personal view, but it still remains to be seen. Second, abstract theory, even if not directly testable, in itself does not disqualify it as science. Most abstract theory is untestable directly in any case. As string theory, in the low energy regime, goes to what is well known and tested, one may claim its pretty solidly scientific. It may be wrong, of course, but it's a perfectly good example of science.

Isn't it also true that some of the math developed for string theory has already proven quite useful?

P.S.

[youtube]16p_16BguFM[/youtube]

[welch]

You could argue that scientists engaged in highly abstract fields that are impossible to test - such as string theory - aren't scientists.

If that field turns out to be a dead end then they have been indulging in a postmodern exercise in studying signifiers without a signified.

Two points: First, its possible that string theory is just nonsense. Its my personal view, but it still remains to be seen. Second, abstract theory, even if not directly testable, in itself does not disqualify it as science. Most abstract theory is untestable directly in any case. As string theory, in the low energy regime, goes to what is well known and tested, one may claim its pretty solidly scientific. It may be wrong, of course, but it's a perfectly good example of science.

Isn't it also true that some of the math developed for string theory has already proven quite useful?

P.S.

[youtube]16p_16BguFM[/youtube]

If you've no Ph.D and publications in the appropriate field, why are you wasting our time with your hobbyist blathering?

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

I am now a scientist. Who knew? In addition to Captain, you must now address me as Chef, Marksman, Bladesmith, Artist, Musician, Engineer, plumber, software engineer, Science Sasquatch (but if you call me that instead of Scientist, I'll whine on Twitter, boo boo) and many more things I will only think of after you get it wrong, making you a sexist pig. Even though that is how I refer to myself at present and my only claim to fame.

Nobody is arguing that anyone can call themselves a 'scientist', just that being a scientist is about practicing science rather than having a few letters after your name.

Someone cataloguing nebulae in his garden shed is practicing science; someone hypothesising extra dimensions too small to see, even if light could propagate along those dimensions, might as well be playing Sudoku on Calabi-Yau manifolds.

Yeah, and SciBabe ain't practicing science any more than I am. She wants da title, she gotta earn it, degree or no. Nothing I've seen argues she's doing science, just a sideshow about degrees and history of science and a few folk who done it without any degrees, but nothing about what she done, yup. She just whined for victim points, and all the rest of this has nothing to do with her claims.

[free thoughtpolice]

Osama bin Laden was almost an engineer...

[Guestus Aurelius]

Two points: First, its possible that string theory is just nonsense. Its my personal view, but it still remains to be seen. Second, abstract theory, even if not directly testable, in itself does not disqualify it as science. Most abstract theory is untestable directly in any case. As string theory, in the low energy regime, goes to what is well known and tested, one may claim its pretty solidly scientific. It may be wrong, of course, but it's a perfectly good example of science.

Isn't it also true that some of the math developed for string theory has already proven quite useful?

P.S.

[youtube]16p_16BguFM[/youtube]

If you've no Ph.D and publications in the appropriate field, why are you wasting our time with your hobbyist blathering?

Because science is a liar, sometimes.