SURVEY - FROGS/BUGS IN A TEST TUBE?clickbait and the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment".
Transcript from https://youtu.be/tNbl-g8QoAg?si=0l63sSl1P6ZVukIV&t=666
There was a recent survey regarding the primordial soup concept. The survey was drafted and conducted by John Narcum Assistant Professor of Marketing at Arkansas Tech University as part of a study entitled: "I thought we could do that pop culture
The question was asked, "Do you believe the following is true or false? Scientists researching the origin of life have created complex life forms from scratch, that is, in laboratory experiments that approximate earth's early atmosphere. Scientistshave mixed chemicals believed to exist before the first life forms to successfully create complex life forms such as frogs. Do you believe that that is true or false?"
The second question, scientists researching the origin of life have created simple life forms from scratch, that is in the laboratory experiment that approximate earth's early atmosphere scientists have mixed chemicals believed to exist before thefirst life forms to successfully create simple life forms such as bacteria...72% percent of the people thought that that was true, 27% people thought false, from a total 715.
80 percent of them hold college degrees, either from an associate's degree all the way up to doctoral degrees all.
Let me enlighten you. Nowhere close, nowhere close. If that were true, whoever did that would have gotten the Nobel Prize. There would have been Nobel Prizes granted to that very, very quickly.
Nobody's ever come close to that.
----------
The salient point? It's "the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment". Can't blame it all on populist science communicators.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:15:48 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:clickbait and the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment".
SURVEY - FROGS/BUGS IN A TEST TUBE?
Transcript from https://youtu.be/tNbl-g8QoAg?si=0l63sSl1P6ZVukIV&t=666
There was a recent survey regarding the primordial soup concept. The survey was drafted and conducted by John Narcum Assistant Professor of Marketing at Arkansas Tech University as part of a study entitled: "I thought we could do that pop culture
have mixed chemicals believed to exist before the first life forms to successfully create complex life forms such as frogs. Do you believe that that is true or false?"The question was asked, "Do you believe the following is true or false? Scientists researching the origin of life have created complex life forms from scratch, that is, in laboratory experiments that approximate earth's early atmosphere. Scientists
first life forms to successfully create simple life forms such as bacteria...72% percent of the people thought that that was true, 27% people thought false, from a total 715.The second question, scientists researching the origin of life have created simple life forms from scratch, that is in the laboratory experiment that approximate earth's early atmosphere scientists have mixed chemicals believed to exist before the
80 percent of them hold college degrees, either from an associate's degree all the way up to doctoral degrees all.
Let me enlighten you. Nowhere close, nowhere close. If that were true, whoever did that would have gotten the Nobel Prize. There would have been Nobel Prizes granted to that very, very quickly.
Nobody's ever come close to that.
----------
The salient point? It's "the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment". Can't blame it all on populist science communicators.I'm tempted to say it's ironic that you are complaining about people believing
misinformation but the term _ironic_ doesn't quite cover it. I say this is light
of your shameless fraudulent quote mind from that protein translation papers,
plus your shameless bushing it off because you were in a hurry. And you're piling it on here. The whole package sells the false view that Miller-Urey type
experiments were ever about creating actual life in the lab. It's a lie that you won't
hear from any remotely competent scientist. And I have no idea what particular
"academy" your quote is trying to reference but that somebody in a Marketing department at a little known school that focuses on agriculture degrees claims
that other people are claiming things is frankly nonsense.
To make the point, you need to quote some legitimate authority that is supposedly
selling such nonsense. And that's obvious to anyone honestly trying to make the points you keep asserting. You might as well be citing your best friend's sister's
boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going
with the girl who heard someone say it. Quote the actual National Academy of Science, or the NCSE, or a biology textbook used in universities.
As per your other thread, it's full of this same sort of nonsense, constructing
strawmen, vague allusions that people promised more than they ever do,
and exaggerations of the problems. The deceits are piled up thick, just like your quote mine.
As for how people answer a survey, there's a science behind that too. You can write the survey questions in ways that get all sorts of whacky answers, and it's known how to do that. Are you unaware of that? Two choices, no
you didn't realize surveys can be written to steer people towards some answers --- in which case you're in a poor position to be complaining about the ignorance of others; or you did know that but found it convenient to your purposes to present this "result" as if it was a meaningful support to your mission.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:10:48 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:clickbait and the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment".
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:15:48 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
SURVEY - FROGS/BUGS IN A TEST TUBE?
Transcript from https://youtu.be/tNbl-g8QoAg?si=0l63sSl1P6ZVukIV&t=666
There was a recent survey regarding the primordial soup concept. The survey was drafted and conducted by John Narcum Assistant Professor of Marketing at Arkansas Tech University as part of a study entitled: "I thought we could do that pop culture
have mixed chemicals believed to exist before the first life forms to successfully create complex life forms such as frogs. Do you believe that that is true or false?"The question was asked, "Do you believe the following is true or false? Scientists researching the origin of life have created complex life forms from scratch, that is, in laboratory experiments that approximate earth's early atmosphere. Scientists
first life forms to successfully create simple life forms such as bacteria...72% percent of the people thought that that was true, 27% people thought false, from a total 715.The second question, scientists researching the origin of life have created simple life forms from scratch, that is in the laboratory experiment that approximate earth's early atmosphere scientists have mixed chemicals believed to exist before the
80 percent of them hold college degrees, either from an associate's degree all the way up to doctoral degrees all.
Let me enlighten you. Nowhere close, nowhere close. If that were true, whoever did that would have gotten the Nobel Prize. There would have been Nobel Prizes granted to that very, very quickly.
Nobody's ever come close to that.
----------
The salient point? It's "the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment". Can't blame it all on populist science communicators.I'm tempted to say it's ironic that you are complaining about people believing
misinformation but the term _ironic_ doesn't quite cover it. I say this is light
of your shameless fraudulent quote mind from that protein translation papers,
plus your shameless bushing it off because you were in a hurry. And you're piling it on here. The whole package sells the false view that Miller-Urey type
experiments were ever about creating actual life in the lab. It's a lie that you won't
hear from any remotely competent scientist. And I have no idea what particular
"academy" your quote is trying to reference but that somebody in a Marketing
department at a little known school that focuses on agriculture degrees claims
that other people are claiming things is frankly nonsense.
To make the point, you need to quote some legitimate authority that is supposedly
selling such nonsense. And that's obvious to anyone honestly trying to make
the points you keep asserting. You might as well be citing your best friend's sister's
boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going
with the girl who heard someone say it. Quote the actual National Academy of
Science, or the NCSE, or a biology textbook used in universities.
As per your other thread, it's full of this same sort of nonsense, constructing
strawmen, vague allusions that people promised more than they ever do,
and exaggerations of the problems. The deceits are piled up thick, just like
your quote mine.
As for how people answer a survey, there's a science behind that too. You can write the survey questions in ways that get all sorts of whacky answers,My commentary is non-expert and imperfect, but I do endeavour to be fair and accurate, and admit errors.
and it's known how to do that. Are you unaware of that? Two choices, no you didn't realize surveys can be written to steer people towards some answers --- in which case you're in a poor position to be complaining about
the ignorance of others; or you did know that but found it convenient to your purposes to present this "result" as if it was a meaningful support to
your mission.
The more I look into the state of OoL, the more evidence I find that there is case to answer. I’m not alone.
I’m aware of the pitfalls of surveys, but even allowing for these, I think it reasonable to conclude here that significant misconceptions are common regarding the progress of science in this area.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:10:48?AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:clickbait and the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment".
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:15:48?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
SURVEY - FROGS/BUGS IN A TEST TUBE?
Transcript from https://youtu.be/tNbl-g8QoAg?si=0l63sSl1P6ZVukIV&t=666
There was a recent survey regarding the primordial soup concept. The survey was drafted and conducted by John Narcum Assistant Professor of Marketing at Arkansas Tech University as part of a study entitled: "I thought we could do that pop culture
have mixed chemicals believed to exist before the first life forms to successfully create complex life forms such as frogs. Do you believe that that is true or false?"
The question was asked, "Do you believe the following is true or false? Scientists researching the origin of life have created complex life forms from scratch, that is, in laboratory experiments that approximate earth's early atmosphere. Scientists
first life forms to successfully create simple life forms such as bacteria...72% percent of the people thought that that was true, 27% people thought false, from a total 715.
The second question, scientists researching the origin of life have created simple life forms from scratch, that is in the laboratory experiment that approximate earth's early atmosphere scientists have mixed chemicals believed to exist before the
I'm tempted to say it's ironic that you are complaining about people believing
80 percent of them hold college degrees, either from an associate's degree all the way up to doctoral degrees all.
Let me enlighten you. Nowhere close, nowhere close. If that were true, whoever did that would have gotten the Nobel Prize. There would have been Nobel Prizes granted to that very, very quickly.
Nobody's ever come close to that.
----------
The salient point? It's "the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment". Can't blame it all on populist science communicators.
misinformation but the term _ironic_ doesn't quite cover it. I say this is light
of your shameless fraudulent quote mind from that protein translation papers,
plus your shameless bushing it off because you were in a hurry. And you're >> piling it on here. The whole package sells the false view that Miller-Urey type
experiments were ever about creating actual life in the lab. It's a lie that you won't
hear from any remotely competent scientist. And I have no idea what particular
"academy" your quote is trying to reference but that somebody in a Marketing >> department at a little known school that focuses on agriculture degrees claims
that other people are claiming things is frankly nonsense.
To make the point, you need to quote some legitimate authority that is supposedly
selling such nonsense. And that's obvious to anyone honestly trying to make >> the points you keep asserting. You might as well be citing your best friend's sister's
boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going
with the girl who heard someone say it. Quote the actual National Academy of >> Science, or the NCSE, or a biology textbook used in universities.
As per your other thread, it's full of this same sort of nonsense, constructing
strawmen, vague allusions that people promised more than they ever do,
and exaggerations of the problems. The deceits are piled up thick, just like >> your quote mine.
As for how people answer a survey, there's a science behind that too. You
can write the survey questions in ways that get all sorts of whacky answers, >> and it's known how to do that. Are you unaware of that? Two choices, no
you didn't realize surveys can be written to steer people towards some
answers --- in which case you're in a poor position to be complaining about >> the ignorance of others; or you did know that but found it convenient to
your purposes to present this "result" as if it was a meaningful support to >> your mission.
My commentary is non-expert and imperfect, but I do endeavour to be fair and accurate, and admit errors.
The more I look into the state of OoL, the more evidence I find that there is case to answer. I’m not alone.
I’m aware of the pitfalls of surveys, but even allowing for these, I think it reasonable to conclude here that significant misconceptions are common regarding the progress of science in this area.
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 18:14:21 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>clickbait and the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment".
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:10:48?AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote: >> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:15:48?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
SURVEY - FROGS/BUGS IN A TEST TUBE?
Transcript from https://youtu.be/tNbl-g8QoAg?si=0l63sSl1P6ZVukIV&t=666 >> >
There was a recent survey regarding the primordial soup concept. The survey was drafted and conducted by John Narcum Assistant Professor of Marketing at Arkansas Tech University as part of a study entitled: "I thought we could do that pop culture
Scientists have mixed chemicals believed to exist before the first life forms to successfully create complex life forms such as frogs. Do you believe that that is true or false?"
The question was asked, "Do you believe the following is true or false? Scientists researching the origin of life have created complex life forms from scratch, that is, in laboratory experiments that approximate earth's early atmosphere.
first life forms to successfully create simple life forms such as bacteria...72% percent of the people thought that that was true, 27% people thought false, from a total 715.
The second question, scientists researching the origin of life have created simple life forms from scratch, that is in the laboratory experiment that approximate earth's early atmosphere scientists have mixed chemicals believed to exist before the
I'm tempted to say it's ironic that you are complaining about people believing
80 percent of them hold college degrees, either from an associate's degree all the way up to doctoral degrees all.
Let me enlighten you. Nowhere close, nowhere close. If that were true, whoever did that would have gotten the Nobel Prize. There would have been Nobel Prizes granted to that very, very quickly.
Nobody's ever come close to that.
----------
The salient point? It's "the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment". Can't blame it all on populist science communicators.
misinformation but the term _ironic_ doesn't quite cover it. I say this is light
of your shameless fraudulent quote mind from that protein translation papers,
plus your shameless bushing it off because you were in a hurry. And you're
piling it on here. The whole package sells the false view that Miller-Urey type
experiments were ever about creating actual life in the lab. It's a lie that you won't
hear from any remotely competent scientist. And I have no idea what particular
"academy" your quote is trying to reference but that somebody in a Marketing
department at a little known school that focuses on agriculture degrees claims
that other people are claiming things is frankly nonsense.
To make the point, you need to quote some legitimate authority that is supposedly
selling such nonsense. And that's obvious to anyone honestly trying to make
the points you keep asserting. You might as well be citing your best friend's sister's
boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going
with the girl who heard someone say it. Quote the actual National Academy of
Science, or the NCSE, or a biology textbook used in universities.
As per your other thread, it's full of this same sort of nonsense, constructing
strawmen, vague allusions that people promised more than they ever do,
and exaggerations of the problems. The deceits are piled up thick, just like
your quote mine.
As for how people answer a survey, there's a science behind that too. You >> can write the survey questions in ways that get all sorts of whacky answers,
and it's known how to do that. Are you unaware of that? Two choices, no >> you didn't realize surveys can be written to steer people towards some
answers --- in which case you're in a poor position to be complaining about
the ignorance of others; or you did know that but found it convenient to >> your purposes to present this "result" as if it was a meaningful support to
your mission.
My commentary is non-expert and imperfect, but I do endeavour to be fair and accurate, and admit errors.Do you think Lawyer D is wrong in anything he says above?
The more I look into the state of OoL, the more evidence I find that there is case to answer. I’m not alone.
I’m aware of the pitfalls of surveys, but even allowing for these, I think it reasonable to conclude here that significant misconceptions are common regarding the progress of science in this area.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:10:48 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:clickbait and the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment".
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:15:48 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
SURVEY - FROGS/BUGS IN A TEST TUBE?
Transcript from https://youtu.be/tNbl-g8QoAg?si=0l63sSl1P6ZVukIV&t=666
There was a recent survey regarding the primordial soup concept. The survey was drafted and conducted by John Narcum Assistant Professor of Marketing at Arkansas Tech University as part of a study entitled: "I thought we could do that pop culture
have mixed chemicals believed to exist before the first life forms to successfully create complex life forms such as frogs. Do you believe that that is true or false?"The question was asked, "Do you believe the following is true or false? Scientists researching the origin of life have created complex life forms from scratch, that is, in laboratory experiments that approximate earth's early atmosphere. Scientists
first life forms to successfully create simple life forms such as bacteria...72% percent of the people thought that that was true, 27% people thought false, from a total 715.The second question, scientists researching the origin of life have created simple life forms from scratch, that is in the laboratory experiment that approximate earth's early atmosphere scientists have mixed chemicals believed to exist before the
80 percent of them hold college degrees, either from an associate's degree all the way up to doctoral degrees all.
Let me enlighten you. Nowhere close, nowhere close. If that were true, whoever did that would have gotten the Nobel Prize. There would have been Nobel Prizes granted to that very, very quickly.
Nobody's ever come close to that.
----------
The salient point? It's "the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment". Can't blame it all on populist science communicators.I'm tempted to say it's ironic that you are complaining about people believing
misinformation but the term _ironic_ doesn't quite cover it. I say this is light
of your shameless fraudulent quote mind from that protein translation papers,
plus your shameless bushing it off because you were in a hurry. And you're piling it on here. The whole package sells the false view that Miller-Urey type
experiments were ever about creating actual life in the lab. It's a lie that you won't
hear from any remotely competent scientist. And I have no idea what particular
"academy" your quote is trying to reference but that somebody in a Marketing
department at a little known school that focuses on agriculture degrees claims
that other people are claiming things is frankly nonsense.
To make the point, you need to quote some legitimate authority that is supposedly
selling such nonsense. And that's obvious to anyone honestly trying to make
the points you keep asserting. You might as well be citing your best friend's sister's
boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going
with the girl who heard someone say it. Quote the actual National Academy of
Science, or the NCSE, or a biology textbook used in universities.
As per your other thread, it's full of this same sort of nonsense, constructing
strawmen, vague allusions that people promised more than they ever do,
and exaggerations of the problems. The deceits are piled up thick, just like
your quote mine.
As for how people answer a survey, there's a science behind that too. You can write the survey questions in ways that get all sorts of whacky answers,My commentary is non-expert and imperfect, but I do endeavour to be fair and accurate, and admit errors.
and it's known how to do that. Are you unaware of that? Two choices, no you didn't realize surveys can be written to steer people towards some answers --- in which case you're in a poor position to be complaining about
the ignorance of others; or you did know that but found it convenient to your purposes to present this "result" as if it was a meaningful support to
your mission.
The more I look into the state of OoL, the more evidence I find that there is case to answer. I’m not alone.
I’m aware of the pitfalls of surveys, but even allowing for these, I think it reasonable to conclude here that significant misconceptions are common regarding the progress of science in this area.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 5:55:49?PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:clickbait and the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment".
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 18:14:21 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:10:48?AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote: >> >> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:15:48?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
SURVEY - FROGS/BUGS IN A TEST TUBE?
Transcript from https://youtu.be/tNbl-g8QoAg?si=0l63sSl1P6ZVukIV&t=666 >> >> >
There was a recent survey regarding the primordial soup concept. The survey was drafted and conducted by John Narcum Assistant Professor of Marketing at Arkansas Tech University as part of a study entitled: "I thought we could do that pop culture
Scientists have mixed chemicals believed to exist before the first life forms to successfully create complex life forms such as frogs. Do you believe that that is true or false?"
The question was asked, "Do you believe the following is true or false? Scientists researching the origin of life have created complex life forms from scratch, that is, in laboratory experiments that approximate earth's early atmosphere.
the first life forms to successfully create simple life forms such as bacteria...72% percent of the people thought that that was true, 27% people thought false, from a total 715.
The second question, scientists researching the origin of life have created simple life forms from scratch, that is in the laboratory experiment that approximate earth's early atmosphere scientists have mixed chemicals believed to exist before
Do you think Lawyer D is wrong in anything he says above?I'm tempted to say it's ironic that you are complaining about people believing
80 percent of them hold college degrees, either from an associate's degree all the way up to doctoral degrees all.
Let me enlighten you. Nowhere close, nowhere close. If that were true, whoever did that would have gotten the Nobel Prize. There would have been Nobel Prizes granted to that very, very quickly.
Nobody's ever come close to that.
----------
The salient point? It's "the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment". Can't blame it all on populist science communicators.
misinformation but the term _ironic_ doesn't quite cover it. I say this is light
of your shameless fraudulent quote mind from that protein translation papers,
plus your shameless bushing it off because you were in a hurry. And you're
piling it on here. The whole package sells the false view that Miller-Urey type
experiments were ever about creating actual life in the lab. It's a lie that you won't
hear from any remotely competent scientist. And I have no idea what particular
"academy" your quote is trying to reference but that somebody in a Marketing
department at a little known school that focuses on agriculture degrees claims
that other people are claiming things is frankly nonsense.
To make the point, you need to quote some legitimate authority that is supposedly
selling such nonsense. And that's obvious to anyone honestly trying to make
the points you keep asserting. You might as well be citing your best friend's sister's
boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going
with the girl who heard someone say it. Quote the actual National Academy of
Science, or the NCSE, or a biology textbook used in universities.
As per your other thread, it's full of this same sort of nonsense, constructing
strawmen, vague allusions that people promised more than they ever do,
and exaggerations of the problems. The deceits are piled up thick, just like
your quote mine.
As for how people answer a survey, there's a science behind that too. You >> >> can write the survey questions in ways that get all sorts of whacky answers,
and it's known how to do that. Are you unaware of that? Two choices, no >> >> you didn't realize surveys can be written to steer people towards some
answers --- in which case you're in a poor position to be complaining about
the ignorance of others; or you did know that but found it convenient to >> >> your purposes to present this "result" as if it was a meaningful support to
your mission.
My commentary is non-expert and imperfect, but I do endeavour to be fair and accurate, and admit errors.
My response to LD answers your question.
The more I look into the state of OoL, the more evidence I find that there is case to answer. I’m not alone.
I’m aware of the pitfalls of surveys, but even allowing for these, I think it reasonable to conclude here that significant misconceptions are common regarding the progress of science in this area.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 5:55:49 PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:culture clickbait and the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment".
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 18:14:21 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:10:48?AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:15:48?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
SURVEY - FROGS/BUGS IN A TEST TUBE?
Transcript from https://youtu.be/tNbl-g8QoAg?si=0l63sSl1P6ZVukIV&t=666
There was a recent survey regarding the primordial soup concept. The survey was drafted and conducted by John Narcum Assistant Professor of Marketing at Arkansas Tech University as part of a study entitled: "I thought we could do that pop
Scientists have mixed chemicals believed to exist before the first life forms to successfully create complex life forms such as frogs. Do you believe that that is true or false?"
The question was asked, "Do you believe the following is true or false? Scientists researching the origin of life have created complex life forms from scratch, that is, in laboratory experiments that approximate earth's early atmosphere.
the first life forms to successfully create simple life forms such as bacteria...72% percent of the people thought that that was true, 27% people thought false, from a total 715.
The second question, scientists researching the origin of life have created simple life forms from scratch, that is in the laboratory experiment that approximate earth's early atmosphere scientists have mixed chemicals believed to exist before
.I'm tempted to say it's ironic that you are complaining about people believing
80 percent of them hold college degrees, either from an associate's degree all the way up to doctoral degrees all.
Let me enlighten you. Nowhere close, nowhere close. If that were true, whoever did that would have gotten the Nobel Prize. There would have been Nobel Prizes granted to that very, very quickly.
Nobody's ever come close to that.
----------
The salient point? It's "the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment". Can't blame it all on populist science communicators.
misinformation but the term _ironic_ doesn't quite cover it. I say this is light
of your shameless fraudulent quote mind from that protein translation papers,
plus your shameless bushing it off because you were in a hurry. And you're
piling it on here. The whole package sells the false view that Miller-Urey type
experiments were ever about creating actual life in the lab. It's a lie that you won't
hear from any remotely competent scientist. And I have no idea what particular
"academy" your quote is trying to reference but that somebody in a Marketing
department at a little known school that focuses on agriculture degrees claims
that other people are claiming things is frankly nonsense.
To make the point, you need to quote some legitimate authority that is supposedly
selling such nonsense. And that's obvious to anyone honestly trying to make
the points you keep asserting. You might as well be citing your best friend's sister's
boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going
with the girl who heard someone say it. Quote the actual National Academy of
Science, or the NCSE, or a biology textbook used in universities.
As per your other thread, it's full of this same sort of nonsense, constructing
strawmen, vague allusions that people promised more than they ever do, >> and exaggerations of the problems. The deceits are piled up thick, just like
your quote mine.
As for how people answer a survey, there's a science behind that too. You
can write the survey questions in ways that get all sorts of whacky answers,
and it's known how to do that. Are you unaware of that? Two choices, no >> you didn't realize surveys can be written to steer people towards some >> answers --- in which case you're in a poor position to be complaining about
the ignorance of others; or you did know that but found it convenient to
your purposes to present this "result" as if it was a meaningful support to
your mission.
My commentary is non-expert and imperfect, but I do endeavour to be fair and accurate, and admit errors.Do you think Lawyer D is wrong in anything he says above?
My response to LD answers your question..
The more I look into the state of OoL, the more evidence I find that there is case to answer. I’m not alone.
I’m aware of the pitfalls of surveys, but even allowing for these, I think it reasonable to conclude here that significant misconceptions are common regarding the progress of science in this area.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 9:15:48 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:clickbait and the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment".
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:10:48 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:15:48 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
SURVEY - FROGS/BUGS IN A TEST TUBE?
Transcript from https://youtu.be/tNbl-g8QoAg?si=0l63sSl1P6ZVukIV&t=666
There was a recent survey regarding the primordial soup concept. The survey was drafted and conducted by John Narcum Assistant Professor of Marketing at Arkansas Tech University as part of a study entitled: "I thought we could do that pop culture
Scientists have mixed chemicals believed to exist before the first life forms to successfully create complex life forms such as frogs. Do you believe that that is true or false?"The question was asked, "Do you believe the following is true or false? Scientists researching the origin of life have created complex life forms from scratch, that is, in laboratory experiments that approximate earth's early atmosphere.
the first life forms to successfully create simple life forms such as bacteria...72% percent of the people thought that that was true, 27% people thought false, from a total 715.The second question, scientists researching the origin of life have created simple life forms from scratch, that is in the laboratory experiment that approximate earth's early atmosphere scientists have mixed chemicals believed to exist before
80 percent of them hold college degrees, either from an associate's degree all the way up to doctoral degrees all.
Let me enlighten you. Nowhere close, nowhere close. If that were true, whoever did that would have gotten the Nobel Prize. There would have been Nobel Prizes granted to that very, very quickly.
Nobody's ever come close to that.
----------
The salient point? It's "the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment". Can't blame it all on populist science communicators.I'm tempted to say it's ironic that you are complaining about people believing
misinformation but the term _ironic_ doesn't quite cover it. I say this is light
of your shameless fraudulent quote mind from that protein translation papers,
plus your shameless bushing it off because you were in a hurry. And you're
piling it on here. The whole package sells the false view that Miller-Urey type
experiments were ever about creating actual life in the lab. It's a lie that you won't
hear from any remotely competent scientist. And I have no idea what particular
"academy" your quote is trying to reference but that somebody in a Marketing
department at a little known school that focuses on agriculture degrees claims
that other people are claiming things is frankly nonsense.
To make the point, you need to quote some legitimate authority that is supposedly
selling such nonsense. And that's obvious to anyone honestly trying to make
the points you keep asserting. You might as well be citing your best friend's sister's
boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going
with the girl who heard someone say it. Quote the actual National Academy of
Science, or the NCSE, or a biology textbook used in universities.
As per your other thread, it's full of this same sort of nonsense, constructing
strawmen, vague allusions that people promised more than they ever do, and exaggerations of the problems. The deceits are piled up thick, just like
your quote mine.
As for how people answer a survey, there's a science behind that too. YouMy commentary is non-expert and imperfect, but I do endeavour to be fair and accurate, and admit errors.
can write the survey questions in ways that get all sorts of whacky answers,
and it's known how to do that. Are you unaware of that? Two choices, no you didn't realize surveys can be written to steer people towards some answers --- in which case you're in a poor position to be complaining about
the ignorance of others; or you did know that but found it convenient to your purposes to present this "result" as if it was a meaningful support to
your mission.
The more I look into the state of OoL, the more evidence I find that there is case to answer. I’m not alone.
I’m aware of the pitfalls of surveys, but even allowing for these, I think it reasonable to conclude here that significant misconceptions are common regarding the progress of science in this area.Someone interested in OoL can either
(1) Read what you say about what others say about what OoL researchers say
or
(2) Read the actual research papers written by OoL researchers.
I think (2) is a better approach, and when I use it, I just see ordinary scientific research making slow progress on an interesting and difficult question, all the while explicitly laying out the difficult problems that remain.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 8:45:49 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:culture clickbait and the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment".
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 9:15:48 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:10:48 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:15:48 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
SURVEY - FROGS/BUGS IN A TEST TUBE?
Transcript from https://youtu.be/tNbl-g8QoAg?si=0l63sSl1P6ZVukIV&t=666
There was a recent survey regarding the primordial soup concept. The survey was drafted and conducted by John Narcum Assistant Professor of Marketing at Arkansas Tech University as part of a study entitled: "I thought we could do that pop
Scientists have mixed chemicals believed to exist before the first life forms to successfully create complex life forms such as frogs. Do you believe that that is true or false?"The question was asked, "Do you believe the following is true or false? Scientists researching the origin of life have created complex life forms from scratch, that is, in laboratory experiments that approximate earth's early atmosphere.
the first life forms to successfully create simple life forms such as bacteria...72% percent of the people thought that that was true, 27% people thought false, from a total 715.The second question, scientists researching the origin of life have created simple life forms from scratch, that is in the laboratory experiment that approximate earth's early atmosphere scientists have mixed chemicals believed to exist before
80 percent of them hold college degrees, either from an associate's degree all the way up to doctoral degrees all.
Let me enlighten you. Nowhere close, nowhere close. If that were true, whoever did that would have gotten the Nobel Prize. There would have been Nobel Prizes granted to that very, very quickly.
Nobody's ever come close to that.
----------
The salient point? It's "the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment". Can't blame it all on populist science communicators.I'm tempted to say it's ironic that you are complaining about people believing
misinformation but the term _ironic_ doesn't quite cover it. I say this is light
of your shameless fraudulent quote mind from that protein translation papers,
plus your shameless bushing it off because you were in a hurry. And you're
piling it on here. The whole package sells the false view that Miller-Urey type
experiments were ever about creating actual life in the lab. It's a lie that you won't
hear from any remotely competent scientist. And I have no idea what particular
"academy" your quote is trying to reference but that somebody in a Marketing
department at a little known school that focuses on agriculture degrees claims
that other people are claiming things is frankly nonsense.
To make the point, you need to quote some legitimate authority that is supposedly
selling such nonsense. And that's obvious to anyone honestly trying to make
the points you keep asserting. You might as well be citing your best friend's sister's
boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going
with the girl who heard someone say it. Quote the actual National Academy of
Science, or the NCSE, or a biology textbook used in universities.
As per your other thread, it's full of this same sort of nonsense, constructing
strawmen, vague allusions that people promised more than they ever do, and exaggerations of the problems. The deceits are piled up thick, just like
your quote mine.
As for how people answer a survey, there's a science behind that too. YouMy commentary is non-expert and imperfect, but I do endeavour to be fair and accurate, and admit errors.
can write the survey questions in ways that get all sorts of whacky answers,
and it's known how to do that. Are you unaware of that? Two choices, no
you didn't realize surveys can be written to steer people towards some answers --- in which case you're in a poor position to be complaining about
the ignorance of others; or you did know that but found it convenient to
your purposes to present this "result" as if it was a meaningful support to
your mission.
The more I look into the state of OoL, the more evidence I find that there is case to answer. I’m not alone.
I’m aware of the pitfalls of surveys, but even allowing for these, I think it reasonable to conclude here that significant misconceptions are common regarding the progress of science in this area.Someone interested in OoL can either
(1) Read what you say about what others say about what OoL researchers say
or
(2) Read the actual research papers written by OoL researchers.
I think (2) is a better approach, and when I use it, I just see ordinary scientific research making slow progress on an interesting and difficult question, all the while explicitly laying out the difficult problems that remain.
I share the views those who seem to be dissenters with some credibility and substance to test them out.
Having posted to t.o on and off over many years, you get feel for the relative strength of a line of argument, and I'm noticing that putting forward dissenting views on OoL is eliciting more heat than light.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 8:45:49?PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:culture clickbait and the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment".
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 9:15:48?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:10:48?AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:15:48?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
SURVEY - FROGS/BUGS IN A TEST TUBE?
Transcript from https://youtu.be/tNbl-g8QoAg?si=0l63sSl1P6ZVukIV&t=666 >> > > >
There was a recent survey regarding the primordial soup concept. The survey was drafted and conducted by John Narcum Assistant Professor of Marketing at Arkansas Tech University as part of a study entitled: "I thought we could do that pop
Scientists have mixed chemicals believed to exist before the first life forms to successfully create complex life forms such as frogs. Do you believe that that is true or false?"
The question was asked, "Do you believe the following is true or false? Scientists researching the origin of life have created complex life forms from scratch, that is, in laboratory experiments that approximate earth's early atmosphere.
the first life forms to successfully create simple life forms such as bacteria...72% percent of the people thought that that was true, 27% people thought false, from a total 715.
The second question, scientists researching the origin of life have created simple life forms from scratch, that is in the laboratory experiment that approximate earth's early atmosphere scientists have mixed chemicals believed to exist before
Someone interested in OoL can eitherMy commentary is non-expert and imperfect, but I do endeavour to be fair and accurate, and admit errors.I'm tempted to say it's ironic that you are complaining about people believing
80 percent of them hold college degrees, either from an associate's degree all the way up to doctoral degrees all.
Let me enlighten you. Nowhere close, nowhere close. If that were true, whoever did that would have gotten the Nobel Prize. There would have been Nobel Prizes granted to that very, very quickly.
Nobody's ever come close to that.
----------
The salient point? It's "the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment". Can't blame it all on populist science communicators.
misinformation but the term _ironic_ doesn't quite cover it. I say this is light
of your shameless fraudulent quote mind from that protein translation papers,
plus your shameless bushing it off because you were in a hurry. And you're
piling it on here. The whole package sells the false view that Miller-Urey type
experiments were ever about creating actual life in the lab. It's a lie that you won't
hear from any remotely competent scientist. And I have no idea what particular
"academy" your quote is trying to reference but that somebody in a Marketing
department at a little known school that focuses on agriculture degrees claims
that other people are claiming things is frankly nonsense.
To make the point, you need to quote some legitimate authority that is supposedly
selling such nonsense. And that's obvious to anyone honestly trying to make
the points you keep asserting. You might as well be citing your best friend's sister's
boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going
with the girl who heard someone say it. Quote the actual National Academy of
Science, or the NCSE, or a biology textbook used in universities.
As per your other thread, it's full of this same sort of nonsense, constructing
strawmen, vague allusions that people promised more than they ever do, >> > > and exaggerations of the problems. The deceits are piled up thick, just like
your quote mine.
As for how people answer a survey, there's a science behind that too. You
can write the survey questions in ways that get all sorts of whacky answers,
and it's known how to do that. Are you unaware of that? Two choices, no >> > > you didn't realize surveys can be written to steer people towards some >> > > answers --- in which case you're in a poor position to be complaining about
the ignorance of others; or you did know that but found it convenient to >> > > your purposes to present this "result" as if it was a meaningful support to
your mission.
The more I look into the state of OoL, the more evidence I find that there is case to answer. I’m not alone.
I’m aware of the pitfalls of surveys, but even allowing for these, I think it reasonable to conclude here that significant misconceptions are common regarding the progress of science in this area.
(1) Read what you say about what others say about what OoL researchers say >>
or
(2) Read the actual research papers written by OoL researchers.
I think (2) is a better approach, and when I use it, I just see ordinary scientific research making slow progress on an interesting and difficult question, all the while explicitly laying out the difficult problems that remain.
I share the views those who seem to be dissenters with some credibility and substance to test them out.
Having posted to t.o on and off over many years, you get feel for the relative strength of a line of argument, and I'm noticing that putting forward dissenting views on OoL is eliciting more heat than light.
[...]
The more I look into the state of OoL, the more evidence I find that there is case to answer. I’m not alone.
On 9/25/23 6:14 PM, MarkE wrote:
[...]
The more I look into the state of OoL, the more evidence I find that there is case to answer. I’m not alone.
The more I look into basic mathematics workbooks, the more evidence I
find that there are equations to answer. It's not just published works, either. I have seen in applied science and engineering that similar
unsolved equations show up regularly. Mathematics must be in a state of crisis!
SURVEY - FROGS/BUGS IN A TEST TUBE?clickbait and the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment".
Transcript from https://youtu.be/tNbl-g8QoAg?si=0l63sSl1P6ZVukIV&t=666
There was a recent survey regarding the primordial soup concept. The survey was drafted and conducted by John Narcum Assistant Professor of Marketing at Arkansas Tech University as part of a study entitled: "I thought we could do that pop culture
The question was asked, "Do you believe the following is true or false? Scientists researching the origin of life have created complex life forms from scratch, that is, in laboratory experiments that approximate earth's early atmosphere. Scientistshave mixed chemicals believed to exist before the first life forms to successfully create complex life forms such as frogs. Do you believe that that is true or false?"
The second question, scientists researching the origin of life have created simple life forms from scratch, that is in the laboratory experiment that approximate earth's early atmosphere scientists have mixed chemicals believed to exist before thefirst life forms to successfully create simple life forms such as bacteria...72% percent of the people thought that that was true, 27% people thought false, from a total 715.
80 percent of them hold college degrees, either from an associate's degree all the way up to doctoral degrees all.
Let me enlighten you. Nowhere close, nowhere close. If that were true, whoever did that would have gotten the Nobel Prize. There would have been Nobel Prizes granted to that very, very quickly.
Nobody's ever come close to that.
----------
The salient point? It's "the academy's influence on perceptions of scientific accomplishment". Can't blame it all on populist science communicators.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 07:55:27 -0700
Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 9/25/23 6:14 PM, MarkE wrote:
[...]
The more I look into the state of OoL, the more evidence I find that there is case to answer. I’m not alone.
The more I look into basic mathematics workbooks, the more evidence I
find that there are equations to answer. It's not just published works, either. I have seen in applied science and engineering that similar unsolved equations show up regularly. Mathematics must be in a state of crisis!
It is. Ever since Hilbert came a cropper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_program
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundational_crisis_of_mathematics
(Maths Crisis! Readawlabahtit!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 113:19:07 |
| Calls: | 6,701 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,235 |
| Messages: | 5,348,851 |