Stephen Matheson wrote:
>
snip..... usual pedestrian line-professional
academic credentials
> In short, my qualifications dwarf yours.
[Hammond]
LOL, in fact, relevant to the problem at hand my credentials
dwarf yours.
A. You have no competency in theoretical physics.
B. You have no competency in Psychometry and Factor
Analysis.
Therefore, you are de facto, academically and professionally
incompetent to evaluate the theory, even though obviously you
would like to argue to the contrary. One could be a Nobel Laureate
in Biology and still incompetent to evaluate a Physics theory.
I regret that this fact obviously seems to infuriate you.
snip
> Your real problem is your argument. It's a collection of errors,
> platitudes and oversimplifications stitched together with fallacious
> "conclusions" and brazenly blatant assertions whose logical inadequacy
> defy overstatement.
[Hammond]
Problem is we have just DEMONSTRATED that you are academically and
professionally UNQUALIFIED to make such a remark, and apparently we
have nothing but you infuriated professional incompetence and personal
political agenda to attribute them too.
>
> By the way, I'm not concerned about your claim to expertise in
> "psychometry". Even if knowledge of this pseudoscience
[Hammond]
You call it a pseudoscience because you are manifestly
unqualified and incompetent in the subject. Fact is the
International Scientific Union recognizes it as a science.
> were an
> advantage for you, you'd have to answer for your errors with
> respect to developmental biology, a field that is crucial to the
> foundations of your argument,
A. It's not crucial to the scientific proof of God.
B. You're not qualified to evaluate the claims being made.
> but with which you have almost no
> familiarity. (And, as you of all people would be first to note,
> no credentials of any kind.)
[Hammond]
An advanced degree in physics is sufficient to observe that
"the body plan of all living things are the same; and are
in fact a 3-axis Cartesian body plan" (both plants and animals).
and this in fact is the origin of the Cross of Christianity. Such
a pronouncement is beyond the means of a biologist or embryologist,
and clearly is only comes within the purview of a physicist. I
would politely remind you tha Physics, as the Queen of the Sciences,
explains ultimately all of Biology.
>
> The others are right: there's no point in engaging you in debate.
> But I thought you might like to know that your "credentials" are
> neither impressive nor relevant to me.
[Hammond]
I agree there's no point in engaging you in dabate because you
are neither educated enough, multidisciplanarily sufficient,
nor adequately credentialed to be worth talking to. No loss
whatsoever to me.
And BTW, DO NOT SEND ME ANY PERSONAL EMAIL. I do not talk
to line professional academics privately under any circumstances.
Either post publicly, or go about your business. I will
make know publicly any private solicitations made to me by
private email.
EMAIL KILLFILE:
Stephen Matheson <matheson@helix.mgh.harvard.edu>
>
> Steve Matheson
-- BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW: ----------------------------------------------------------- George Hammond, M.S. Physics Email: ghammond@mediaone.net Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html -----------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 23 2001 - 19:33:02 EDT