« Back to Thread View

Displaying (6) Comments | Comment on this piece | Report objectionable art

n7gVgE It as not that I want to copy your web page, but I really like the design and style. Could you let me know which style are you using? Or was it custom made?

By: | Sep 25, 2020 | Report Comment

hhzT6i I truly appreciate this article.Thanks Again. Really Cool.

By: | Aug 04, 2015 | Report Comment

pZsnod Thanks for the article.Really looking forward to read more. Fantastic.

By: | Aug 06, 2014 | Report Comment

你好~我在seattle找工找已經一個多月了, 因為opt的關係一定�找major相關的工作, 我是UW electrical ennrgeeiing BS 的, 這個月來都是在學校的husky job和craigslist上找工作, resume send了�多份但�有一份有回覆, 上星期五電話interview後今天收到recruiter電話說我�太��, �空了... 請�你�以給點�見嗎? �找�到工作�月底就�離開美國了...你的blog真的很有用, 我會�詳細看看, 如果有時間請email我�絡, poewong at gmail dot comthanks a lot

By: | Apr 29, 2013 | Report Comment

A colleague retecnly emailed me a copy of the Lead Letter in Science magazine, May 7, 2010, entitled Climate Change and the Integrity of Science. My friend is a scientist, he is a believer in AGW, and he thought the letter was authoritative. I, on the other hand, am only a Philosophy instructor. But, I must say that every time I read that letter, I get angrier and more disgusted. With the publication of this letter (a despicable, lowly political hack job), the magazine and all the signers relinquish all claim to scientific integrity. There is not one solid thing to hold onto in this letter. This letter is full of the most foul ad hominems, it whines and plays the victim, it makes vague complaints and vague accusations (omitting any particulars, so that any reply would be impossible), begs the question by simply making bold assertion, illegitmately uses appeal to authority and appeal to concensus, whitewashes the climategate affair (calling it McCarthy-like to attack their friends, again without bothering to mention specific charges like stonewalling FOI requests). They even have their own version of Pascal's wager, though it is a wager about the truth of AWG, not about the existence of God. Can you find it? They even smear some of my heroes like Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein, seeming to suggest that they were in it to build reputations and gain recognition. NO! These were men possessed by the quest for scientific truth and understanding. Any person who cannot see that discourse on this level has no place in scientific debate is a person who has no moral integrity. I am going to deconstruct this stupid letter line by line, and maybe you all would like to sign a copy and send a complaint to the so-called Science magazine, to the U.S academy of sciences, and maybe even one to Inhof and the Attorney General of Virginia. So,here is your assignment. If you are smart enough to know that AGW is true, are you smart enough to locate the ad hominems in the Integrity of Science letter, and are you smart enough to say why such fallacious reasoning has no place in scientific discussion? By the way, you don't need a Ph.D. in Philosophy or a statement by the American Philosophical Association to know that ad hominem is scum-bag argumentation and that it is wrong. Cheers.[DC: The wide difference of opinion between you and your scientist colleague is a microcosm of the gulf between scientists and some portions of the general public. It also appears that you have no objection to the initiatives of Senator Inhofe and the Virginia Attorney General. You are entitled to your opinion, however ill-informed it may be. However, I must warn you in advance that your initial comment is already overly long, and it certainly would be unacceptable to post a "line-by-line" critique. So please publish it elsewhere, and if you like you can point to it here. Thanks! ]

By: | Apr 29, 2013 | Report Comment

This is both setret smart and intelligent.

By: | Apr 27, 2013 | Report Comment

Elizabeth

Starfish1849

• Make Products
• View Thread
• Add this Artwork to My Favorites
• Share this artwork with a friend!

There are 1 pieces of art in this thread

• 

Comment On This Piece