The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Human rights and religious exceptionalism > Comments

Human rights and religious exceptionalism : Comments

By Ian Robinson, published 9/2/2009

While laws against racial intolerance are justifiable, laws against disparagement of religion are unacceptable in a free society.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. All
mil-observer, I'm afraid you're being just a little, errr, free with the language, are you not, when you describe Newton as a fraud.

>>It's not just the fact of plagiarism, but the shoddy and corrupted expression of it that characterizes the Newton hoax.<<

The "hoax" that you describe was, as any fule kno, a little light tinkering with the numbers. That did not in any way invalidate or bring into question the theories for whose support they were enlisted.

And if you insist on reaching your conclusions via sensationalist marginalia, be aware that such behaviour can fry your brain.

Your source material in this instance was dismissed by the authoritative voice of "Nature", whose review pointed out that "[Judson's] arguments [are] far-fetched, dated and poorly aimed"

In its obiter dicta, the critique also points out:

"Taking a tip-of-the-iceberg approach, Judson extrapolates from scores of documented episodes in the pantheon of scientific fakery, many of them also recounted in a 1983 book of similar title, scope and dour conclusions, Betrayers of the Truth by William Broad and Nicholas Wade (Simon & Schuster)."

Could that be a tiny suggestion of... plagiarism? [Shurely not - ed]
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 3:25:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bb: "...accusation seems...very minor...fiddled the figures a little...[to] better fit his theories".

Were you an HIH lawyer, bb?

Newton's "re-working" of Kepler's laws is a grand fraud, mainly because Newton merely used different and vague terminology for what Kepler discovered over fifty years earlier. Newton didn't "prove Kepler's laws"; Kepler backed his own conclusions with 100% perfect research and analysis (even harmonics!). Newton's intellectual parasitism suited The Royal Society that sponsored Newton and promoted him as one of their own.

I never "insinuated" that Newton plagiarized Leibniz's Calculus work: rather, I stated it as a matter of clear historical fact. Any fair examination of the sequence of events leaves us only that one sensible conclusion; the rest concerns political influence committing to Newton for the sake of Britain's local and international interests of coercion and/or corruption. "Fluxions" indeed!

Besides, Newton's repeat rip-offs locate his Leibniz con in familiar territory. Newton's pampered, glittering career is replete with such scamming. Optics was another case, where medieval studies preceded Newton's dabbling which, characteristically, came in for more Newtonian "re-working" and re-wording.

And Pericles, why would I defend the Judson book? I'm not surprised if it has its own plagiaristic form - that would suit the whole joker's mentality in these cases, as if to demonstrate just how easily people can be misled (as in the Newton case itself). I already warned of Judson's pithiness and timidity; I quoted that one sentence merely to highlight the basic fact that Judson conveyed, however meekly and indirectly i.e., "the case against Newton is clear-cut and not denied". Judson's reference to Newton's cooking of data to fit his theories is just the "tip of the iceberg". But then, from your quote, that's exactly what obiter dicta said is it not? And you can be certain that the context of Newton is exactly what the obiter dicta criticism meant about Judson's limp approach.

From what I can ascertain, this interesting side case of Judson's timid scientific dissent betrays just how persistent is the political influence in protecting the reputations and commitment surrounding the whole Newton hoax.
Posted by mil-observer, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 7:51:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
references, mil. last chance.
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 8:23:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK, not HIH. FAI then? OneTel?

Last chance at what? Impressing you or (possibly) helping to educate you by passing you a reading list? You can't even come near substantiating any actual case for Newton - you'd rather it be just another name-dropping contest. I've proved my main point on this thread: the loud "secular humanists" go by various "received truths". They think little and have no critical faculty worth the description.

Here's a reference to bb's own stuffy text: "...the hoaxiness of newton's career? i don't mean the alchemy stuff. i mean the accepted stuff..."

So there goes the great Sir Newton, avid alchemist and purported icon of the Enlightenment's strident opposition to superstition and "received truth"! Just leave out "the alchemy stuff" - it doesn't fit with the entry on Newton in that illustrated compendium 'The Greatest Scientists of All Time'.

But, as I said before: I don't do references - I don't have the clout that comes from such august bodies as The Royal Society. However, I know of a guy who can give some quite glowing references. His name's "Justice Marcus Einfeld". Now, this guy can get you: character references; employer references; academic references; witness statements; coroners' reports; DNA analysis reports; tertiary degree certificates (by mail); urinalysis reports; weather reports; statutory declarations - just name it.

[this bb guy demands sources, qualifications, etc. here, but has previously gone on record in OLO (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8461&page=0#133722) to say that quoted scientists "are neither here nor there" in countering his outlandish claim that a case of scientific dissent is only the conjuring of "a political hack". His double standards are a sick joke]
Posted by mil-observer, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 2:54:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
forget it, mil. life's too short to attempt to reason with guys like you.
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 9:48:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy