[Vision2020] NSA's accrediting agency is not recognized in Texas
ophite at gmail.com
Fri Dec 21 20:02:59 PST 2007
On Dec 21, 2007 7:58 PM, Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
> Joe Campbell leaps to the fringe again - thin ice for sure.
> Gary Crabtree made two simple statements:
> 1. "As if good scientists made up their own data in the laboratory!"
> 2. "Why the very notion that data might be faked by Scientists must be
> Neither statement could be reasonably argued that Crabtree was asserting
> that all science was fudged. Nor can he be accused, legitimately, of
> arguing for the hypothesis that given the 10 links provided as examples of
> false science, he is making a claim that all science is fudged.
> Cynical - yes; sarcastic - absolutely; skeptical - right on.
> Another example of Joe Campbell arguing the straw man.
> Gary Crabtree is right in the context of his post. Science can be trusted,
> as long as it is verified. Replication upon replication is essential - and
> the more a scientific result challenges a paradigm, the more necessary is
> the verification.
> An interesting point - note that Joe Campbell states:
> The history of science is extensive and glorious. The case for evolution
> theory is great, also, which is why the number of biologists working in the
> area who reject it can be counted on one hand. It would take a billion
> examples to prove Gary Crabtree's point, and I don't see that coming any
> time soon. Anyone want to bet that more than 5 scientists (biologists) can
> be found that reject evolution theory? I would have thought that Joe
> Campbell would be more careful with his unfounded assertions.
Sure. There're probably five. Could you find me a peer-reviewed
article in a scientific journal that rejects the premise of evolution?
(Hint: you won't find one, for the same reason you won't find a
peer-reviewed article that rejects the premise of anthropogenic global
More information about the Vision2020