87 replies to this topic

[trizzle]

I'm arguing that a book is being used as a scientific foundation without any proof that the matter is actually scientific. We have a person who has a PHD in a completely different school publishing a book, without providing any of the science to back it up, and its being widely accepted as a fact.

When someone with a PHD in a field does a research paper, they include their research, and it is reviewed by their peers before it is submitted as a fact. How can you rely on something that has had none of these things done to it? It was written and published and that is it?

I just want to add that you shouldn't really argue about the importance of PhD, they don't really matter that much if you leave that field of academia after completing them. My dad has a PhD in chemistry and runs the IT department of a university (and does nothing whatsoever to do with Chemistry any more) and my auntie has a PhD in English Lit and is an accountant, a head of finance actually.

So what I'm saying is you're completely wasting your time arguing that having a PhD in a different subject doesn't qualify this person to write a book about zoology. He probably studied Linguistics years ago and then moved on and found a passion for zoology and mating behaviour patterns and became an expert in that instead. His past is largely irrelevant in this case, and you should be looking at the subject material of his book instead not arguing that he didn't do a degree in it.

[Sweeney]

I'm arguing that a book is being used as a scientific foundation without any proof that the matter is actually scientific. We have a person who has a PHD in a completely different school publishing a book, without providing any of the science to back it up, and its being widely accepted as a fact.

Without providing any of the science to back it up!?
What do you think he did? Just write "aminulz r gay lulz" over and over again for 750 pages?
Jesus H. Christ, you're a legitimate imbecile.

When someone with a PHD in a field does a research paper, they include their research, and it is reviewed by their peers before it is submitted as a fact. How can you rely on something that has had none of these things done to it? It was written and published and that is it?

It is a comprehensive review of the peer reviewed literature. Everything in it is peer reviewed.
(Actually, that's not quite true. It does include some unpublished data, but comparatively little.)

If its related to biology, or sexuality, or anything else. IT would have been given awards from someone in those fields. Something that validates that its scientifically sound. The only thing that I see is lesbian/gay/bi/transgender rights awards.

What? 99.9% of everything that has ever been written is without spurious awards.
The fact that it has been cited by 350+ papers in the last several years is testament to its validity, as are the unofficial plaudits from reviewers, and the critical acclaim from the likes of Nature.

Or are you saying that the editor of Nature isn't a qualified peer reviewer?

[iargue]

Or are you saying that the editor of Nature isn't a qualified peer reviewer?

"A series of five fraudulent papers by Jan Hendrik Schön were published in Nature in the 2000–2001 period. The papers, about superconductivity, were revealed to contain falsified data and other scientific fraud. In 2003 the papers were retracted by Nature."

Even the best make mistakes?

It is a comprehensive review of the peer reviewed literature. Everything in it is peer reviewed.
(Actually, that's not quite true. It does include some unpublished data, but comparatively little.)

No. Everything he CLAIMS he used is peer reviewed. Is his actual findings peer reviewed?

[trizzle]

Without providing any of the science to back it up!?
What do you think he did? Just write "aminulz r gay lulz" over and over again for 750 pages?
Jesus H. Christ, you're a legitimate imbecile.

Spoiler

Edited by trizzle, 18 April 2012 - 12:41 PM.

[Sweeney]

"A series of five fraudulent papers by Jan Hendrik Schön were published in Nature in the 2000–2001 period. The papers, about superconductivity, were revealed to contain falsified data and other scientific fraud. In 2003 the papers were retracted by Nature."
Even the best make mistakes?

So then why bother insisting for a peer review process anyway, since it's clearly unfit for purpose?
You're making steadily less sense.

You'll also note the retraction within 2-3 years. Biological Exuberance has been published for thirteen years, and no such denouncement is forthcoming.

No. Everything he CLAIMS he used is peer reviewed. Is his actual findings peer reviewed?

What findings? The book is a collation and review of relevant research. It doesn't have "findings".

If I had ten years to waste on you, I could type out the list of references for every chapter, and we could work through those.
Of course, since you wouldn't know a sound methodology if it slapped you in the face, it'd be somewhat pointless.

(Again, I note that you failed to address another salient point: What do you think the book's pages are filled with, if not the scientific evidence that backs up the claims of each paper?)

[Edit: Thank you, Nymh.)

[iargue]

I just want to add that you shouldn't really argue about the importance of PhD, they don't really matter that much if you leave that field of academia after completing them. My dad has a PhD in chemistry and runs the IT department of a university (and does nothing whatsoever to do with Chemistry any more) and my auntie has a PhD in English Lit and is an accountant, a head of finance actually.

So what I'm saying is you're completely wasting your time arguing that having a PhD in a different subject doesn't qualify this person to write a book about zoology. He probably studied Linguistics years ago and then moved on and found a passion for zoology and mating behaviour patterns and became an expert in that instead. His past is largely irrelevant in this case, and you should be looking at the subject material of his book instead not arguing that he didn't do a degree in it.

So basically you are saying that a PHD is 100% useless. Who cares what your area of schooling is. You can go off and do whatever you want and it doesn't matter if you went to school, it doesn't matter if you don't have anything to prove that you know what you are talking about. All you have to do is spend some time reading papers and then write a book about it and you are good to go.

[Sweeney]

So basically you are saying that a PHD is 100% useless. Who cares what your area of schooling is. You can go off and do whatever you want and it doesn't matter if you went to school, it doesn't matter if you don't have anything to prove that you know what you are talking about. All you have to do is spend some time reading papers and then write a book about it and you are good to go.

No.
She's saying that having a Ph.D in Linguistics doesn't preclude him from being good at biology.

As is immediately obvious to anyone with any measure of wit at all.

[trizzle]

So basically you are saying that a PHD is 100% useless. Who cares what your area of schooling is. You can go off and do whatever you want and it doesn't matter if you went to school, it doesn't matter if you don't have anything to prove that you know what you are talking about. All you have to do is spend some time reading papers and then write a book about it and you are good to go.

No I'm not saying it's 100% useless I'm just saying it doesn't have to define what you do next. It's not a contract that says right, you did a PhD in this you must do it forever. And people can pay to do their PhDs if they don't get sufficient funding (i.e. their ideas are crap) which I think holds less value than someone going out, spending 10 years researching in a new academic field and compiling a well-written book about their findings.

Edit: What Sweeney said (also thankyou for acknowledging I am a girl, I could have sworn it said 'he' at first)

Edited by trizzle, 18 April 2012 - 01:26 PM.

[Waser Lave]

Jesus H. Christ, you're a legitimate imbecile.

Don't say that, he'll probably actually start believing that he's Jesus (if he doesn't already).

[Sweeney]

Don't say that, he'll probably actually start believing that he's Jesus (if he doesn't already).

If that means we get to literally crucify him, instead of just verbally, I am totally down with that.

[Random]

If that means we get to literally crucify him, instead of just verbally, I am totally down with that.

He has already played the role of martyr.

[Waser Lave]

If that means we get to literally crucify him, instead of just verbally, I am totally down with that.

It's probably a bit clichéd now, I've been hearing good things about hanging, drawing and quartering though.

[iargue]

No I'm not saying it's 100% useless I'm just saying it doesn't have to define what you do next. It's not a contract that says right, you did a PhD in this you must do it forever. And people can pay to do their PhDs if they don't get sufficient funding (i.e. their ideas are crap) which I think holds less value than someone going out, spending 10 years researching in a new academic field and compiling a well-written book about their findings.

Edit: What Sweeney said (also thankyou for acknowledging I am a girl, I could have sworn it said 'he' at first)

The only point in which is a PHD is useful us to prove that you are knowledgeable in a certain field of expertise. If you can gain the same level of expertise in a field without the need of a PHD, then obviously the PHD is much less useful. In this case, the person did everything exactly by a PHD. He didn't go out and study things. He read books and papers about those things. The only difference with what he did, and what a PHD student does, is that the PHD students have to actually pass tests to confirm that they know the information. He skipped the test and published a book. By doing this, he invalidates the need to take a test.

[Waser Lave]

The only point in which is a PHD is useful us to prove that you are knowledgeable in a certain field of expertise. If you can gain the same level of expertise in a field without the need of a PHD, then obviously the PHD is much less useful. In this case, the person did everything exactly by a PHD. He didn't go out and study things. He read books and papers about those things. The only difference with what he did, and what a PHD student does, is that the PHD students have to actually pass tests to confirm that they know the information. He skipped the test and published a book. By doing this, he invalidates the need to take a test.

There's nothing wrong in writing a thesis composed entirely of secondary research as long as the way the information is used contributes new knowledge to that particular field of study. Perhaps you're mistaken on this matter because you haven't experienced higher education but that is the reality.

[Sweeney]

The only point in which is a PHD is useful us to prove that you are knowledgeable in a certain field of expertise. If you can gain the same level of expertise in a field without the need of a PHD, then obviously the PHD is much less useful. In this case, the person did everything exactly by a PHD. He didn't go out and study things. He read books and papers about those things. The only difference with what he did, and what a PHD student does, is that the PHD students have to actually pass tests to confirm that they know the information. He skipped the test and published a book. By doing this, he invalidates the need to take a test.

You have no idea how to get a Ph.D, do you? There are no "Ph.D tests".

Also, it's cute that you've decided to ignore my posts now. What do you think that says about you?

[iargue]

You have no idea how to get a Ph.D, do you? There are no "Ph.D tests".

Also, it's cute that you've decided to ignore my posts now. What do you think that says about you?

So the years of college where you take exams to reach the point where you reach a phd doesn't count as tests?

I see.

[Waser Lave]

So the years of college where you take exams to reach the point where you reach a phd doesn't count as tests?

I see.

PHD students have to actually pass tests to confirm that they know the information

The phrase 'clutching at straws' springs to mind.

[iargue]

The phrase 'clutching at straws' springs to mind.

I dont see how that is grasping at straws...

you spend eight years to get your Masters, during which you are taking tests our your ass. Then you go off and create a thesis to gain your PHD. This means for 8 of 10ish years, you are taking tests that prove that you know your subject matter.

[Waser Lave]

I dont see how that is grasping at straws...

you spend eight years to get your Masters, during which you are taking tests our your ass. Then you go off and create a thesis to gain your PHD. This means for 8 of 10ish years, you are taking tests that prove that you know your subject matter.

You don't spend eight years to get a master's, I have a master's degree and have spent a total of four years at university. In addition, you don't need to take any tests during a master's course as I know from first-hand experience. In summary, you're talking out of your arse about a subject on which you have absolutely no experience and little knowledge.

[Romy]

I can't believe noone posted this, tsk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIcrCZQkSlg

Oh my...crap..i can't stop laughing.

[iargue]

You don't spend eight years to get a master's, I have a master's degree and have spent a total of four years at university. In addition, you don't need to take any tests during a master's course as I know from first-hand experience. In summary, you're talking out of your arse about a subject on which you have absolutely no experience and little knowledge.

You do in the US.

In the US its FOUR years for BS and TWO years for a masters.

[Waser Lave]

You do in the US.

In the US its FOUR years for BS and TWO years for a masters.

And 4 + 2 = 8? I eagerly await the next episode of 'iargue stubbornly attempting to dig his way out of the hole he dug himself in an attempt to mitigate his looking like an idiot in front of everybody because he doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong'.

Spoiler

The title is a work in progress.

[Nymh]

And 4 + 2 = 8?

This is terribly off topic, but now that I have more rep I am repping like crazy

Please rep gods don't take this away from me

[iargue]

And 4 + 2 = 8? I eagerly await the next episode of 'iargue stubbornly attempting to dig his way out of the hole he dug himself in an attempt to mitigate his looking like an idiot in front of everybody because he doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong'.

Spoiler

The title is a work in progress.

No

4 + 2 = 6, which is what it takes to get your MS

Then a Php, which is a level higher then an ms, takes two more years. Or maybe four, depending on your field and your thesis.

I can't believe you are this retarded... seriously...

Your trying so hard to make me look bad at math, that you are failing to even follow through with your own argument. My argument was 8 years for a phd. 4 for bachelors. 2 for ms. 2 for phd. That math does equal to 4, but you completely forget that the argument was about phd (You are the one that brought up the ms) and call me out on my math for phd using my math for ms as disproving it.

I'm disappointed, your usually much better at this.

This is terribly off topic, but now that I have more rep I am repping like crazy

Please rep gods don't take this away from me

Yes. We must rep the people who change the entire topic of conversation in attempt to derail my logic. Of course I look stupid when my math for a phd is apply to math for a masters. But when applied to the proper degree, it makes perfect sense.

Oh well.

[Waser Lave]

No

4 + 2 = 6, which is what it takes to get your MS

Then a Php, which is a level higher then an ms, takes two more years. Or maybe four, depending on your field and your thesis.

you spend eight years to get your Masters, during which you are taking tests our your ass.

And good luck finding a PhD which takes 2 years...