creditable tome Ms Dr kiloPascal.
I was amused recently by none other than an episode of "Friends" where Phoebe took Ross to task over his "belief in evolution".  resulted in a fine climax where she torched him by using Karl Popper's fine principle of falsifiability to split science from pseudo-science.
Highly recommended. (both that friends episode, early in series 2, as a trivial summary of the theory, and Karl Popper, noted philosopher of the 20th century.  google "Karl Popper falsifiable" without the quotes)
cheers
mere BEng GDIT RM

on 10/01/08 12:28 Kate Adams said the following:

Seeker, there is one gaping hole in your reasoning: some people are not
sufficiently scientifically literate to tell hoax from real.  HOWEVER, there
are far too many scientists who confuse a little scientific knowledge with
definitive understanding.  They can make some rather grievous errors as a
result of their hubris.

A decade ago, evidence of a link between air pollution and heart disease
emerged.  It was immediately "discredited" because many, even those in the
field, could not imagine a possible mechanism by which air pollution could
cause heart disease or any cardiovascular effect. While some pooh-poohed the
very notion that it was anything other than confounding and bias because
they *knew* it wasn't possible, the findings popped up again, and again, and
again.

Guess what?  There is a substantial body of emerging mechanistic evidence
that very fine particles penetrate the lung, enter the blood stream, and
mess around with cardiovascular systems - both clotting mechanisms and
neurological responses.  So much for what we think we know because we are
scientists!

Pardon me if I sound a little harsh here - not only am I accustomed to
working with community groups who are patronized by experts who later turn
out to be vastly wrong in their assumptions, I'm in the middle of a mess
caused when a radiologic scientist decided to "properly reanalyze" health
study data collected by one of the researchers we fund.  The guy did
contribute some interesting statistical analyses and hypotheses on his way
to concluding that removing a pollutant source did nothing for population
health, but he also made some absolutely WHOPPINGLY WRONG assumptions out of
blind ignorance of mechanisms of effect that negate his conclusions.  If
only he could use his sophisticated understanding of radiation to mitigate
the ridiculous political fallout ...

Remember - what you know can help you. What you don't know can hurt you. And
what you think you know but don't can royally bite you in the ass.

Cheers,
Dr. kPa

On 1/9/08, Seeker <seeker42@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Indeed. Thank you for stating it so succinctly, or I might have posted
> something rather more irate.
>
> I'm always scared by how easily people are deceived by things that are
> easily shown to be impossible by an understanding of very basic
> physics. Unfortunately, it seems that what I consider "basic physics"
> wasn't taught 30 years ago, and so many people carry irrational fears
> about (particularly) electricity, computers, microwaves and mobile phones.
>
> In this case, I suspect that the "plausibility" of the story comes
> from a misunderstanding. The inclusion of having to answer the phone
> reminds me of the (true) stores about people being killed by lightning
> strikes being conducted by their phone lines.
>
> If you value your time, there's no need to read further.
>
> While I'm at it, I'd just like to take a commonsense approach to the
> fears of "mobile phone radiation". Yes, I'm well and truly hijacking a
> soapbox here, but this forum is pretty quiet these days anyhow.
>
> Many here may know that mobile phones operate using so-called
> "microwave radiation". The simplified electromagnetic spectrum looks
> as such:
>
> Low Frequency                                     High Frequency
> Radio - Microwave - Infrared - Visible Light - UV - Xray - Gamma
>
> Now for the part that isn't taught until elective physics:
>
> e = hf. That is, Energy of a wave is equal to Planck's constant
> multiplied by the frequency. Since Planck's constant is a constant, we
> can say that energy is directly proportional to frequency.
>
> Thus, we can see why high frequency x-rays and UV light are harmful -
> they carry a large amount of energy. Microwaves, on the other hand,
> being of a low frequency carry less energy than visible light, and
> even than infrared (heat energy). So if you're worried about mobile
> phones cooking your brain, I suggest you don't go outside. The risks
> are far greater.
>
> Sorry about your time!
>
> Chris
>
> --- In powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au, RM <m2k7@...> wrote:
> >
> > email warnings about technology, crime, viruses etc are generally all
> > fakes and should be rebutted promptly to stop their travel.
> >
> > if you get any warning, especially any that say "FORWARD THIS TO
> > [everyone in your mail list]", first google a key phrase out of the
> mail
> > (in quotes might help too) and see if it shows up on the regular hoax
> > monitoring sites:
> > eg:
> > I googled : "ever answer a cell phone while it is being RECHARGED"
> > and found:
> > http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_cell_phone_electrocuted.htm
> > http://www.hoax-slayer.com/cell-phone-charging.html
> > http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/cellcharge.asp
> > as the top 3 listings.  These 3 sites are the regular hoax-busters.
> >
> > most people have seen enough of these to have already built up a sense
> > of loathing for both the mails and those who pass them on, but most
> > people also have to first send one to learn this, so don't feel too
> > embarrassed, we've all been caught.
> >
> > Cheers
> >  RM
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo!7 Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 
Yahoo!7 Groups Links