Well, it’s nice to be back on line! I haven’t had much chance to write anything in the last week, but it would have been nice to have been able to if I’d wanted…
Reasons for not posting: a) the registrar & I have been incredibly busy at work, trying to process student enrolments before the Big Christmas Shutdown (which we both intend to spend hanging out with family, eating, drinking & generally having fun) – no spare time to set finger to keyboard.
and b) we moved house over the weekend – only to the other side of Hamilton but still, a huge amount of work. Once we’d got stuff out of boxes and the place resembling a home rather than the warehouse for an auction company, I innocently plugged in the computer & all its little gizmos & prepared to surf the net, yay! But alas, no broadband. Until today, when the nice men from Chorus came by & put the right wires in the right sockets in the rather spiffy switchboard thingy we’ve acquired.
So life has returned to normal (& the registrar will be happy as I am now going to do some more enrolments from the comfort of my home office -sure beats trekking across Hamilton in the peak of the pre-Christmas frenzy!)
Amjde says:
“Actually, we do resepct science. What we don’t do is adopt belief systems based on hypotheses from so-called scientists that use incomplete and unreliable predictive modeling, include wild conjectures as fact, pass off student dissertations as reliable research, and accept advocacy claims without testing, all while conspiring to hide contradictory evidence and scheme to ruin the careers of those who question them. Science requires that claims get tested, that predictive models that fail get discarded, that data and process remain open for review, and that critical thinking get welcomed instead of demonized.”That’s true for the myth of Darwinian evolution, as well.
Alison Campbell says:
Why, exactly, are you necromancing a thread from way back with a totally unrelated comment?
As for your rather breathless list of claims: hypotheses from so-called scientists that use incomplete and unreliable predictive modeling, include wild conjectures as fact, pass off student dissertations as reliable research, and accept advocacy claims without testing, all while conspiring to hide contradictory evidence and scheme to ruin the careers of those who question them – let’s see some actual evidence for them. Or are you channelling Ben Stein here?