SBC Yahoo wrote:
Download the article at

http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.c...7D63E19B490C13

Just remember Only a fool uses theories as facts.


So what does that say about the 'science' we're paying for? That it's
just a gravy train? Of course these geezers don't believe it for one
moment, about mountains growing by erosion, but they've been asked to
do an article for Sci Amer. and taken it up on grounds of 'mileage'
that could help their career - such is their belief that putting their
name to suchlike stuff is a help rather than a hindrance in this
regard. They know this is firm ground of course, because they also
know (from their own reciprocal experience) that the only bit of papers
people ever read is references - to see if they get a mention. (real
scientists, theories, and facts)

It's a graphic illustration of how true academics deal in science. But
the way they write it, there's no concession to the discrimination of
which you speak. It seems it's not just designed to fool the public,
but other academics as well; one would almost believe they're fooling
themselves. ..or is it indeed a club of collusion we're witnessing when
they finish off:-
_______________Quote:-
"Like Plate Tectonics, the new model also illuminates phenomena that
had [sic] long puzzled geologists. Computer simulations incorporating
many of the model's principle precepts, for example, have proved very
successful in mimicking the effects of complex tectonic histories,
climatic variability and different geologic setting. Continuing
research will provide even more details of how Earth's magnificent
mountain ranges grow, evolve and decline, as well as details conerning
the importance of mountains in shaping the climate and tectonics of our
planet."
________________Unquote

....and that academia is indeed a conspiracy of apparatchicks? Is that
the sort of bull**** we're supposed to accept? (And yes, they do say
that vegetation slows down the growth of mountains, and you can see the
meat-juice dribbling from that one)

Carey gave them the answer half a century ago, all nicely bundled and
tied up with ribbons, the jigsaw already done just like the picture on
the front of the box. But they didn't want to know. They killed it.
Why? Because what would they do for an encore? Their whole reason
for existing within the machine of science (as academics) is the
testing of 'ideas'. That is, ideas of the 'everybody-can-have-one'
sort. Anyone gets a better one than anyone else and the tall poppy
syndrome kicks in to ensure the lowest common denominator rules - the
one that everybody agrees with, the 'consensus' model. The ones that
the majority (dumbest) will swallow. The question of 'agreement' on
something of real **VALUE** is (as your post says) not an issue.
What is of value is if it serves 'scientific interest'. The more
'research' allows going through the motions of testing useless
nonsense, on the grounds that it's the business of academics to be
'clever' (read "test ideas"), the more scientific value it has (as the
article concludes). As in plate tectonics (Iapetus? and Panthalassa?)
the obvious flawed assumptions are set aside as irrelevant in the face
of what else pontificable they allow. The edifice on the crumbling
base is the "grounds for more research". (Jesus! They're even
threatening to link it to global warming.)

It's appalling, but it's how real science works, and how it gets held
up for hundreds of years. But who cares? And why should they?
Everybody gets a job, and it all goes around and isn't that what's it's
all about? Why do we need things to be right, when being wrong and
spinning it out is so much more rewarding? And going too fast anyway
would cause more problems than it solves. As you say, only a fool
bothers if a theory is right or not. Unfortunately for the paying
public, it's guys like you that give out the grants, or we wouldn't
have that gobbledegook in the above quotes, whatever it's supposed to
mean. There are only two words that make any sense: "Magnificent
Mountains" - the rest is just meaningless crap. But we're supposed to
believe it's worth the price on the front of the magazine. Not to
mention the fallout from all the graduates these 'professors' are
sending out into the real world after years of indoctrination of what
science is supposed to be about.

Next they'll have us believing we should be paying to combat the threat
of terrorism from abroad. And why not? Look at the benefits, the drop
in unemployement.. Only a fool gives a **** if it's a fact or not.

Apparatchicks, and their ill winds.