Quote:Polygraphers, no responses to my point about how you feel Carl Sagan would have been evaluated by his instructors at an astrology seminar? I'll take your silence as agreement.
Your point is stretched like taffy on a puller. If Cornell U assigned Carl to be an astrology student and to research astrology---only to have Carl be a lethargic student who a leading expert in that field states in a legal declaration that Carl has the single worst grasp of the fundemental priciples of astrology that said professional has seen in a career lifetime----then Carl would indeed be worthy of being called "not an expert on astrology---much less a "superior expert." Knowing Carl, he would have been a superb astrology student and researcher, regardless of what his opinions and/or merits of the field relied.
Quote:
as•trol•o•gy
n
The study of the positions and aspects of celestial bodies in the belief that they have an influence on the course of natural earthly occurrences and human affairs.
as•tron•o•my
n
The scientific study of matter in outer space, especially the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena.
To further debunk your comparison, Carl Sagan was tasked (similarly as J. Allen Hynek) to explore the possibility for otherworldly visitation (ufo's) and Carl, although a great skeptic--having said " [paraphrased]great claims require great evidence"----delved into the study relentlessly---even the silly stuff. He was a man among men and a scientists scientist------fact of the matter, I am insulted that you would dare breath the name Carl Sagan in the same breath as Drew Richardson.
Quote:I have a feeling that Dr. Sagan might have gotten a fairly cool reception once he started to point out just how little the "experts" knew about the peer-reviewed science upon which theirs is purported to be based.
The analogy could not be more apropos.
Polygraphy is a practice which purports to determine credibility based on physiological responses to interrogation. Again, the problem lies within the fact that the "luminaries" are less than knowledgeable about the science (physiology) on which polygraphy purports to be based. I can only imagine the reactions of the "experts" when Dr. Richardson pointed out that their house was built on a foundation of sand.
There you go again with "I have a feeling"which explains why you worship anyone claiming to pass under and grad college science courses.More on that later.----Carl would have been worshipped by astrologers---besides, your comparison of Carl attending a seminar and Drew attending an intensive school and training in field conditions for preparitory research is way off the mark. Are you drinking alcohol? A seminar?
Jesus H Christ you are so wrong Gino I don't know where to begin. 1st--to interrogate, means to Accuse. "Polygraphy is a practice which purports to determine credibility based on physiological responses to interrogation"---is wrong. Since when does a polygraph chart administration contain interrogation (accusation)? Any accusation come after the test is administrated. While "luminaries" may not all be psychologists and physiologists, neither are polysomnographers---people who conduct sleep studies with multiple component instrumentation and make critical analysis of circadian and physiological maladies involved with sleep problems. Dr. Richardson did not point anything out to us, other than the fact that he was disgruntled----now I hear he is involved in an allegedly sketchy private venture with an allegedly irreputable attorney in the business of FMRI lie and memory detection. Gee, funny when a guy leaves coca cola badmouthing the place and the industry and folly---then goes over to RC cola for work. Regardless, if you want to be nit picky, last I checked Drew wasn't a neurologist or a neuro-linguistics expert----important areas of expertise when studying the brain and how it processes language and images. I do wish him luck, and if fMRI makes my kids safer from predators, than I will gladly change careers to something that actually pays a living wage and doesn't have a group of "anti-anything" critisizing every professional misstep.
Quote:In my opinion, in rank order with the most difficult academic disciplines listed first...
1. Hard Science
Examples: chemistry, physics
2. Soft Science
Examples: sociology, political science, communications
Oh, wait. There's one more...
3. Non-Science
Examples: astrology, phrenology, polygraphy
I have a brother who would agree with you and one that would disagree with you. Who asked you what you think is acedemically hard and what is easy? Are you in high school Gino, cause study hall really sucks---let's go to the mall for pizza.
Your #3 is venom without substance. Polygraph is both hard science and higher art. Boy, those gung-ho hard-ons at the secret service poly mill must have really ruffled your feathers.
niters