Concerning Bakke

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> BAKKE

> Not at all.  Perhaps you've heard of "Nature" and/or "Science"?  Maybe

> even "Scientific American"?  Are you going to read any or all of these

> now that you know about them?



> TERRY

> I have already read some of those magazines. Thanks for submitting them.


BAKKE
If you are already familiar with them, how can you possibly not know
what is considered to be a leading, peer-reviewed science magazine as
opposed to the mass-market pap you referenced in the post which led to
this discussion?


TERRY
Because I wanted to see what YOU, were going to recommend

BAKKE
I can assure you that if you ever find anything in one of those journals
that supports any of your arguments, I will keel over from shock.


TERRY
Good, I will remember that. Will you also keel over from shock, if I find
something in weekly reader, since you recommended it too. *grin*


BAKKE
Now that you know, does this mean that my arguments will carry any more
weight as far as you are concerned?


TERRY
Why should your arguments carry any more or any less weight because you
mention the name of some magazines you consider real scientific magazines?
I will have to wait until I hear your arguments to make that
determination.


BAKKE
And, now that you know, I'll bet that you'll still try to defend Time
and Newsweek as being equally-reliable sources of cutting-edge science
articles, right?


TERRY
Oh, boy!  Well, you will lose your bet, because Time and Newsweek are news
magazines and I told you I was reading it for the enjoyment of reading,
there was nothing else laying around at the moment and I picked one up and
read some of it.  That does not mean I consider Time and Newsweek to be
"reliable sources of cutting-edge science articles." Here is a source I do
enjoy reading, www.sciencedaily.com



> TERRY

> I KNOW Time and Newsweek are not scientific magazines, but

> that does not mean that all the articles in them are without value.


BAKKE
Of what value is an inaccurate or biased article on science in a
mass-market publication?

TERRY
If the article is inaccurate it does not matter what magazine it comes
from.   But just because it appears in Time or Newsweek does not mean it
is automatically inaccurate.  I am not going to debate the merits of
Newsweek or Time as good science magazines, because I don't consider them
as science magazines.   I am merely saying this one article I read, seem
to be a good article, it did not appear to draw any conclusion, but in
this instance, merely reports from another source about a certain event.


> TERRY

> Nor does it mean that the scientific magazines you mention are

infallible

> either.


BAKKE
Of course not.  However, a source does not have to been infallible to be
immeasurably superior.


TERRY
No, a source does not have to "be" infallibe to be superior.



> TERRY

> I am sure when it comes to scientific reporting, the scientific

> magazines are more valuable then news magazines, however that does not

> lessen the value of the article I read in Time magazine.


BAKKE
If that article had any value, we wouldn't even be having this
discussion.

TERRY
Did you read the article, or  thorough know what was said.   If you didn't
read it, then you cannot make an unbiased judgement on this one particular
article now can you?  You are simply stating your opinion because you view
Time and Newsweek as not being real science magazines.  (which I have no
problem with, because they are not science magazines in the first place.)
Until you actually read this article you have no way of knowing what part
of it, if any, is not accurate or has no value.

• Previous message: Concerning Bakke
• Next message: Concerning Bakke
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]