Just publish publish publish, no mattern what, no matter how inanical, no matter how pointless, no matter how fake. No publications, no career. And the more significant your research, the less it will get funded. And the less likely you'll get something publishable out of it: it either doesn't work, or it works too well and your papers are revolutionary and get rejected. Better play it safe...
It's so rotten! >:-(
Science is in an advanced state of decay. Perhaps the time has come for us to look for a replacement...
It only works part of the time. Unfortunately. And even when it does, it usually takes many years, often decades. Nobody in science wants to check what they don't want to see debunked; i.e. their pet theory.
The rest of the time, they just make up `epicyclical' explanations for discordances as keep business as usual for as long as it lasts. [Epiclyclical, like the epicycles made up to refuse the evidence that Earth was not at the center of the universe].
From your post, I see that you have a very superficial understanding of how science actually works. Some inside info could open your eyes.
This, along with your earlier assertion that revolutionary findings are suppressed for 30 years, is a sure indication that you've never read much peer-reviewed literature.
How can you tell? Reading your crystall ball?
Actually, I've read a lot of it. The quality of a lot of what I read just proves that `peer review' does not stop poor science from being published. I've also learn not to expect anything revolutionary---it's just not published there.
Peer review isn't about ensuring orthodoxy; it's about ensuring that you support your claims.
All too true. Real peer review, that is. I've never seen such a thing in science. It could save science, though.
Other than weapons research and the direct applications research going on in big companies, science is remarkably transparent.
ROTFL. Yeah, right. Again, you've read too much of Science Inc. PR realeases.
For peer reviewed science all you really need is a library card.
To a library that happens to carry the journal you need. Chances are, it's not there. Not even in university science libraries. Too expensive. Go figure. The Inet is there for almost free to half a billion people and growing.
Again, a library card to a well-stocked hemerotheque only grants you access to the officially-sanctioned science. The revolutionary science you don't find in those journals.
with six nines' accuracy only >creationists are asking for evidence that supports >the theory of evolution
How you show your ignorance! Darwininsm is not the theory of evolution! Just one of them. The theory of biological evolution predates Darwin by millenia. And in the last decades quite a few evolutionists have been asking for evidence that support Neoarwinism, the Neodarwinian explanation for evolution. There is no evidence to be found. You just never here about this---science's transparency! See how any skeptic is labelled as ``Creationist''? You just did it, you labeled quite a few of evolutionary biologists---including me---as Creationists, and without a quark of evidence. Thanks for proving my point.
Now, if you do care about evidence, there are some very interesting papers that demolish Neodarwinism, and no, there is not a trace of Creationism in them, they are just better biology. You might find them an interesting read. Go find, them, if you dare. And if you can penetrate the Great Wall Of Silence.
And that whole "peer review" thingy is just a formalization of skepticism toward one another's claims. That's why science is self-correcting, and things like Piltdown Man and the fake dino-bird brought out of China a few years ago, which creationists are so fond of harping on, are actually exposed by scientists rather than by creationists. Skepticism is very important to science.
Oh my, how I'd like that to be true! Unfortunately, ``peer review'' (which is neither) only guarantees that revolutionary findings are suppressed for 30 years or so, and by then those who actually thougth of it, the true scientists, are retired or even dead, and the looters of science `rediscover' those findings and become the new high priests of the departed genious. Then, this new generation of looters and fakers block the new ideas for another 30 years... and so it goes on and on generation of looters following generation of looters that feed on the work of real scientists. The so-called ``peer-review'' also means that skeptics in science never get published. Only those that `get along with the program' are not silenced. Don't you belive me? Good, be skeptic, don't believe, verify. So verify: check the history of science, find out about the new ideas in science that are being suppressed, and see by yourself.
And answer this: why is the review done on things we never get to see. We have had the Inet for a couple of decades now... why is science not published first and reviewed later? To do it that way costs less than 10%, and science would be transparent to us all.
Yes, fakes---read non-officially santioned fakes---are found out. But others, like Darwinism, are not. Go and ask for any evidence that supports Darwinism... you get called ``Creationist''. The fact that you accept the fact of evolution, the fact that you want evidence, the fact that you may find Creationism ridiculous, is not relevant to these looters that call themselves scientists. Be a skeptic, be a scientist, and get labeled as ``Creationist''.
Makes so much more sense, and the code is so elegant! Less than 1% of the size compiled! All the internals are open to examination. And no spaghetti linking of libraries. It has a unified explanation engine, and a simple but powerful interface. It explains a lot more. And it can even define ``life''.
It is binary incompatible with M$-Darwinism 2.0 and Creationism 6.66, though. Also, there is no multi-millon marketing for it, so you won't find it in Orwell-santioned Stores of Knowledge. And there are a couple of rough edges and minor bugs to fix. Free Science, you know.
Makes more sense, and the code is so elegant! Less than 1% of the size compiled! All the internals are open to examination. And no spaghetti linking of libraries. It has a unified explanation engine, and a simple but powerful interface. It explains a lot more. And it can even define ``life''.
It is binary incompatible with M$-Darwinism 2.0 and Creationism 6.66, though. There is no multi-millon marketing for it, and there are a couple of rough edges and minor bugs to fix---Free Science, you know.
Not very high, uh?
Not, this is unlikely to be a freak. The Darwinian explanation for it is of course suspect. Fossils are not so much the ones to be suspect, the Darwinian school is. There is no proof whatever for evolution being caused by natural selection. No proof. Zilch. Nil. Lots of proof for *evolution*, but none for the Darwinian explanation for it. Not a tiny scrap of evidence that the cause of evolution is natural selection, and not, say, the self-organization of negaentropic dissipative machines. Of course, saying that makes you into a Creationist. Or so Darwinians say...
The fact is, animals can do *whatever they want*, as long as they get away with it (that is, survive). Just like the stupid giant panda eating bamboo. There is no need to explain features as *advantages*. That's the way the critters are, and if they live, they live, if they don't, they don't. That's why freaks are that; freaks. They mostly don't live long, unless you create for them a special environment.
But this dinosaurs with rodent-like dentition... they were
successfull enough at being like that to leva fossil remains. Very unlikely that this was a freak.
As the saying goes ``Academia has the worst politics, because the stakes are so low''. Sadly, all too true. And the pay sucks. You may find you like better the kind of work you get to do, though. Still, don't hope for too much: many scientists are so clueless about computers that you may find yourself replacing one kind of pointy-hairs for another, and for less $$$.
Anyway, best of luck.
Slashdot Mirror
Just publish publish publish, no mattern what, no matter how inanical, no matter how pointless, no matter how fake. No publications, no career. And the more significant your research, the less it will get funded. And the less likely you'll get something publishable out of it: it either doesn't work, or it works too well and your papers are revolutionary and get rejected. Better play it safe...
It's so rotten! >:-(
Science is in an advanced state of decay. Perhaps the time has come for us to look for a replacement...
It only works part of the time. Unfortunately. And even when it does, it usually takes many years, often decades. Nobody in science wants to check what they don't want to see debunked; i.e. their pet theory.
The rest of the time, they just make up `epicyclical' explanations for discordances as keep business as usual for as long as it lasts. [Epiclyclical, like the epicycles made up to refuse the evidence that Earth was not at the center of the universe].
From your post, I see that you have a very superficial understanding of how science actually works. Some inside info could open your eyes.
This, along with your earlier assertion that revolutionary findings are suppressed for 30 years, is a sure indication that you've never read much peer-reviewed literature.
How can you tell? Reading your crystall ball?
Actually, I've read a lot of it. The quality of a lot of what I read just proves that `peer review' does not stop poor science from being published. I've also learn not to expect anything revolutionary---it's just not published there.
Peer review isn't about ensuring orthodoxy; it's about ensuring that you support your claims.
All too true. Real peer review, that is. I've never seen such a thing in science. It could save science, though.Other than weapons research and the direct applications research going on in big companies, science is remarkably transparent.
ROTFL. Yeah, right. Again, you've read too much of Science Inc. PR realeases.For peer reviewed science all you really need is a library card.
To a library that happens to carry the journal you need. Chances are, it's not there. Not even in university science libraries. Too expensive. Go figure. The Inet is there for almost free to half a billion people and growing. Again, a library card to a well-stocked hemerotheque only grants you access to the officially-sanctioned science. The revolutionary science you don't find in those journals.with six nines' accuracy only >creationists are asking for evidence that supports >the theory of evolution
How you show your ignorance! Darwininsm is not the theory of evolution! Just one of them. The theory of biological evolution predates Darwin by millenia. And in the last decades quite a few evolutionists have been asking for evidence that support Neoarwinism, the Neodarwinian explanation for evolution. There is no evidence to be found. You just never here about this---science's transparency! See how any skeptic is labelled as ``Creationist''? You just did it, you labeled quite a few of evolutionary biologists---including me---as Creationists, and without a quark of evidence. Thanks for proving my point.
Now, if you do care about evidence, there are some very interesting papers that demolish Neodarwinism, and no, there is not a trace of Creationism in them, they are just better biology. You might find them an interesting read. Go find, them, if you dare. And if you can penetrate the Great Wall Of Silence.
And that whole "peer review" thingy is just a formalization of skepticism toward one another's claims. That's why science is self-correcting, and things like Piltdown Man and the fake dino-bird brought out of China a few years ago, which creationists are so fond of harping on, are actually exposed by scientists rather than by creationists. Skepticism is very important to science.
Oh my, how I'd like that to be true! Unfortunately, ``peer review'' (which is neither) only guarantees that revolutionary findings are suppressed for 30 years or so, and by then those who actually thougth of it, the true scientists, are retired or even dead, and the looters of science `rediscover' those findings and become the new high priests of the departed genious. Then, this new generation of looters and fakers block the new ideas for another 30 years... and so it goes on and on generation of looters following generation of looters that feed on the work of real scientists. The so-called ``peer-review'' also means that skeptics in science never get published. Only those that `get along with the program' are not silenced. Don't you belive me? Good, be skeptic, don't believe, verify. So verify: check the history of science, find out about the new ideas in science that are being suppressed, and see by yourself.
And answer this: why is the review done on things we never get to see. We have had the Inet for a couple of decades now... why is science not published first and reviewed later? To do it that way costs less than 10%, and science would be transparent to us all.
Yes, fakes---read non-officially santioned fakes---are found out. But others, like Darwinism, are not. Go and ask for any evidence that supports Darwinism... you get called ``Creationist''. The fact that you accept the fact of evolution, the fact that you want evidence, the fact that you may find Creationism ridiculous, is not relevant to these looters that call themselves scientists. Be a skeptic, be a scientist, and get labeled as ``Creationist''.
Makes so much more sense, and the code is so elegant! Less than 1% of the size compiled! All the internals are open to examination. And no spaghetti linking of libraries. It has a unified explanation engine, and a simple but powerful interface. It explains a lot more. And it can even define ``life''.
It is binary incompatible with M$-Darwinism 2.0 and Creationism 6.66, though. Also, there is no multi-millon marketing for it, so you won't find it in Orwell-santioned Stores of Knowledge. And there are a couple of rough edges and minor bugs to fix. Free Science, you know.
Makes more sense, and the code is so elegant! Less than 1% of the size compiled! All the internals are open to examination. And no spaghetti linking of libraries. It has a unified explanation engine, and a simple but powerful interface. It explains a lot more. And it can even define ``life''.
It is binary incompatible with M$-Darwinism 2.0 and Creationism 6.66, though. There is no multi-millon marketing for it, and there are a couple of rough edges and minor bugs to fix---Free Science, you know.
Not very high, uh? Not, this is unlikely to be a freak. The Darwinian explanation for it is of course suspect. Fossils are not so much the ones to be suspect, the Darwinian school is. There is no proof whatever for evolution being caused by natural selection. No proof. Zilch. Nil. Lots of proof for *evolution*, but none for the Darwinian explanation for it. Not a tiny scrap of evidence that the cause of evolution is natural selection, and not, say, the self-organization of negaentropic dissipative machines. Of course, saying that makes you into a Creationist. Or so Darwinians say... The fact is, animals can do *whatever they want*, as long as they get away with it (that is, survive). Just like the stupid giant panda eating bamboo. There is no need to explain features as *advantages*. That's the way the critters are, and if they live, they live, if they don't, they don't. That's why freaks are that; freaks. They mostly don't live long, unless you create for them a special environment. But this dinosaurs with rodent-like dentition... they were successfull enough at being like that to leva fossil remains. Very unlikely that this was a freak.
As the saying goes ``Academia has the worst politics, because the stakes are so low''. Sadly, all too true. And the pay sucks. You may find you like better the kind of work you get to do, though. Still, don't hope for too much: many scientists are so clueless about computers that you may find yourself replacing one kind of pointy-hairs for another, and for less $$$. Anyway, best of luck.