PAULING, SZENT-GYORGYI, VITAMIN C AND ME

Bert Gold bgold at itsa.ucsf.edu
Tue May 7 14:25:43 EST 1996


I agree with Mr. Wagner when he suggests that Mr. Kuslich
has not properly sorted the wheat from the chaff in the
scientific literature.

In addition, it is precisely the point that science has become
overly politicized which I was trying to make in writing my post.

In fact, regular readers of my essays will remember that the Woods
Hole meeting I proposed specifically excluded media and was wholly
aimed at gathering a fair and honest consensus from scientists before
presenting the results to the public.

However, the scientific ruling elite have chosen not to follow this
wise course, preferring noisy public debate and namecalling to
reasoned, well thought-out discourse.

Our leaders need to rethink their positions.

Bert Gold
San Francisco


Path: itssrv1.ucsf.edu!cgl!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!not-for-mail
From: wagner at pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (Lukas Wagner)
Subject: Re: PAULING, SZENT-GYORGYI, VITAMIN C AND ME
Date: 7 May 1996 12:06:34 -0400
Organization: Ohio State University Physics Dept.

John E. Kuslich <johnk at indirect.com> wrote:

>Just look at research on "Cold Fusion", "Global Warming", and "The Ozone 
>Hole" for further examples of the poor quality of some recent so-called 
>scientific research.  
>
The ozone hole is quite real.  You might look up articles by Sherwood 
Rowland written in the last 10 years if you don't believe me, or if 
you have qualms about the quality of the research.  The evidence 
on global warming is mixed to the best of my knowledge.  
I believe that the basis for the conclusions is careful work on ice cores.
Why you put either of these in the same category as cold fusion 
is beyond me; perhaps you can cite review articles in real journals
that indicate the poor quality of the science?  

>Chaos theory eliminated any hope of long term weather prediction, and 
>yet we still have "researchers" at major universities doing computer 
>simulation of weather.  
>
Generously, this sentence suggests that you haven't read the Journal
of Atmospheric Research recently. If getting to a library is troublesome,
catch NCAR's web site: http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/
for some idea of what people who study weather actually do.

The Lyapunov spectrum of weather models depends on the number of modes
one includes.  The number of days over which it's feasible to 
forecast weather depends on the largest Lyapunov exponent.
You might look at J. Curry, Commun. Math. Phys. 60, 193 (1978).

I hope that what you do for a living is less half-assed than your post.

Science has some real problems; excessive politicization is certainly 
one of them.  What you seem to cite as symptoms aren't.


-- 
						-Lukas Wagner
					wagner at pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu





More information about the Proteins mailing list